The Scales of Good and Evil:
Part II

Cliff Pickover

On the main
web page on Good and Evil
I presented a list
of the Top Ten evil and good people
of all time. The debate started on this page and
continues below.

Please add your votes. Who would you like
to see added to the list? What alterations would you make to the list
or the ordering? Do the scales of good and evil balance?

Paul L:
First off, I found your site most interesting, not because of who you
had or did not have on the evil/good list, but because of the debating that
followed.
I'd like to throw these comments out about the evil side. It seems
most of these men committed their atrocities against something they
found inherently evil and needed to be dealt with, but for me the most
evil acts done are those against the truly innocent. Let's face it -- no
man is with out sin so none of us are innocent [for does it not state in
the bible "the wages of sin is death"]. So really these who died
deserved what they got, but the argument is did these men possess the
right to place this judgment upon the souls of the victims.
Let's add to the list the men who raped and or murdered the
children {i.e. pedophiles}, which I think can be held almost universaly
evil in all cultures, countries and classes, even in or out of war time
where really the only thing that really counts is to win by almost any
means? But those who chose to destroy innocents for sexual
gratification top my list of the truely damned soul with no means of
salvation and which no man or woman sheds a tear for this lowest form of
humanity. Not only does this personify pure evil it is a form that does
not change , does not feel regret or remorse , and is only going to
reaffend until death does the deed for us. I'd like to hear your
thoughts on these points of evil?

"Lorenzo G.":
I think that good and evil should be better defined before attempting
the kind of rating of these lists; some problems and limits, that many
comments from readers have already pointed out, undermine the
meaningfulness of the lists, regardless of what specific persons are on
them.
Only famous people get listed; this is unavoidable if the list is to be
universal.
But this means that many more obscure people are neglected, even if they
are more good or evil of the well known people listed.
Only important good or evil accomplishments can be evaluated, not actual
moral attitude.
Political leaders are most prominent in the lists and in user
suggestion, but only because they had the means and opportunities to do
what other people just desired; so force of will and external
circumstances are an important factor that cannot be easily eliminated.
Many deeds are done not only because of goodness or evilness, but for
reasons of convenience, external pressure, insanity (in the broadest
meaning of the word, and even slight or transient), stupidity (and
involuntary errors), imprinting from education, and so on. How can we
judge good and evil from deeds alone?
My opinion is that good and evil are the entirely subjective acts of
voluntarily choosing and doing what is perceived as "right" or "wrong".
It is responsibility (that is, free will) which gives a moral value to
how a person behaves; not effectiveness of the acts or their
consequences.
Regarding what is right and wrong, I consider these terms synonimous
with "beneficial" and "harmful", first to the individual (directly or
indirectly) and then to whatever that person loves. So an evil attitude
is typically self-destructive (e.g. going to play tennis etc. instead of
attending to university lessons, thus throwing away your chances to get
a degree and a good job; or enjoying criminal activities now knowing
that you will be caught later). An evil person is first of all a corrupt
person, who feels the burden of his evil (more or less consciously; many
mental disorders arise from the twisting of bad feelings).
So the correct way to evaluate good and evil should be investigating
what people think of themselves; of course this is practically
impossible, and any attempt at ranking the most good and evil people is
difficult enough to be futile.
A small avenue for philosophical research, however, is considering what
is good or evil with respect to personal opinions only or with respect
to natural and objective reasons. It is the very difficult and very old
issue of deciding the boundaries, in society and law, of personal
freedom and public interest.

From: "Rhonda C"
I nominate my ex husband for taking my girls for the summer and keeping
them and fighting for custody. Because his mistress,whom he left me for,
cant have children.
He is evil.

From: "Matthew K"
And taking from the good list.
Please consider the following:
http://eserver.org/history/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt,
http://www.airspeed.com/~shydavid/mt.htm
You may find them enlightening about two of your 'Good' entries. Ghandi I
don't think you could go with as evil, just a hypocrite. But The Saintly
Sister, Mother Theresa... Well, she certainly isn't one of the worst
people in the world, all the people on the evil list are worse, but she
seems rather objectionable to me.

From: Freddy C.
Carl Marx would be nice.
also dalai lama didn't do too much great things..
if only for the sake of nobel prize, I think Mandela is way better
surprise to see them mentioned.

From Ben J. W, London:
It's hard to make lists like these, but your one is pretty good
and there are people that I hadn't thought of. Personally I would
include Oliver Cromwell for the genocide that he committed and maybe
Pinochet.

For the good list I am glad that you recognised Siddhartha Gautama
and not letting the popular western figures. Two people that would
feature highly on my list are Michael Collins and Karl Marx, but I
suppose that depends on your politics. Not many people know much
about the Baha'i faith which i discovered this summer when i went to
one of their Houses of Worship in Chicago, Illinois. It was a
surprise to see them mentioned.

From: Kevin H.
I think you should add Courtney love to your top 10 evil list, she killed
her Husband Kurt Cobain and attacks and bullies other to as she says, it's a
common fact that she hates people who try and leave her on stop her get what
she wants.
her dad also believes she's pure evil also.

From: "jimmy"
hi, i agree with Bostjan T
religeon is evil, man created god to create himself.
all this bull sh*t about God and how he is "good"
screw that, people are good, people that do stuff.
'drunk fruitcakes' dont deserve the spotlight. i dont either,
but dont contradict me, just think about it, there is no proof
of God. If you think that 'he' is up there, think again 'cause
religeon is EVIL the #1 choice from me, put it on the evil list.

From: "Mehrnoush Y"
Please add Ayatullah Khomaini to your
evil list for
his count less blood shed of innocent Iranians in the name of
God.

From: "Ben W."
dear cliff
i agree with your placing of vlad tepes. i think he was a good leader
but as a person he was bad.
i don't think that chairman mao should be included, he was no hero but
compared to stalin he was not a power mad tyrant who twisted socialism
to suit him.
i think as you have many people who have tried to comit genocide you
should consider Oliver Cromwell.

i am pleased to see the Buddha Siddhartha and Baha'u'llah so high on
your good list. people such as these are often overlooked in the west.
mother theresa, abraham lincoln and carl djerassi should not be on the
list and especially not above gandhi and martin luther king. the reasons
given for these people do not justify their placings.

my personal top five good people is
1. Siddhartha Gautauma
2. Karl Marx
3. Michael Collins
4. the current incarnation of the Dalai Lama
5. Mohandas Gandhi

i think marx and collins may depend on your politics though
from B. J. Whelan, London

From: Sandie
Jeoffrey dahmer

From: JMBibles.
What About Elizabeth (aka Ezerbet) Bathory?
She was a woman in Romania who had 600+ young girls murdered and bled for no
reason other than because she thought bathing in their blood kept her skin
looking young. Because she was nobility, she was never able to receive full
punishment for her deeds. She wasn't too long after Vlad the Impaler. Think
it was something in the water? Pretty creepy woman. She REALLY needs to be
on your list.

From: "Tim G."
I think you should be on the cutting edge with your list.
If I was going to include somebody on the 'most evil list' I
wouldn't have to go too far to see that Al Gore should be up there.
It may be a hunch, but something tells me, if he is elected, we are
all going to be in deep deep.. well you know. On a more serious
note,but not being too serious. An Evil person would have to be
hmmm.. Eve, as in Adam and Eve. If it wasn't for her, we wouldn't
have sin. With out sin, there would be no evil people. So, as Eve
being the pioneer in Evil ways, I think she is number one. Good
people ( I was just thinking evil people are much more easy to choose
from), back to the good ones.. I don't know if anyone mentioned
Princes Dianne. She was big on helping out many children. Ohh,
another bad person, or sick in the head about to be bad person--
Richard Seed. The guy that is trying to clone humman beings. Well, I
don't like the idea of that. It goes against all that is moral and
ethical. There one to the list. Billy the Kid, he was a pretty mean
SOB. He was cool, but he did kill quite a number of people. Other
evil people: The tobacco people, some one can add names,
Statistically, they have killed more people than Hitler. You can
argue that, but I will win.

Number one on the list, even though his intentions were not to have this
happen, I hold him personally liable. Charles Darwin! He influenced
Hitler, Eichmann, Lenin and Stalin.

great page cliff, I will be back in the future to see how everything is
turning out.

From: Mari
Hi,

I don't have any names for the evil list, although I'm sure they are out
there, however, I have a couple of thoughts I'd like to share.
First, I read over the arguments some shared with you concerning the Romania
Vlad Tepes, and it seemed that both responders' point was that we can't judge
the actions of 14th or 15th century people by 20th century standards. My
point is this...why can't we? After all, we certainly judge medicinal
activities back in those days from a modern stand point, and as such we
(collectively, for the most part) agree that "bleeding" people, not washing
one's hands, shocking people without any understanding of how the human mind
works, demanding that labor be painful for women, etc, etc...I could go on
and on....were all activities that happened as a result of people's ignorance
or lack of concern in dealing with the "medical" profession. So, if we judge
those happenings with a "modern" mind, why not the evil actions of other
individuals from that long ago time period?
Also, while I think that it is sad what America has done in the past by the
way of war, one notable difference to be considered might be that one who
enlists in the service of one's country and kills for the "cause"..does not
necessarily take great personal gratification in one's actions.....but that
exactly seems to be what the "evil" list persons did...took great personal,
and in my opinion sick, satisfaction and gratification in committing their
"evil" acts. And for anyone who has committed tortuous acts, subjugation,
etc against a person or a group of people and taken personal pleasure in
it...would qualify as evil.
Just my thoughts on the issue...

One last thing, for your list of the top "Good" people....don't you think it
would be more productive to have a list that includes only those individuals
that have been historically proven to have actually existed? Correct me if
I'm wrong, but there is some historical discrepancies as to whether Jesus or
Moses actually existed...or at least were the people as they were "written"
to be in that one and only source...the bible.

Thanks for allowing me to share too.

I was sent a web site about Skeptic's View of Christianity, and your web page
was a link, and I was browsing.....so that's how I found in.

I enjoy reading as much as I can about various issues, religion, particularly
christianity and judaism are the ones I have been studying on and off for the
last year. I am a reformed christian....if that's the correct term...a
former believer so to speak.

As to the thing about Jesus, if one is going to rely on the bible to
understand the person that was supposedly this Jesus...then one can also make
valid arguments from the bible that he wasn't such a great guy much of the
time either. His messages seem to oppose one another at various stages and
places in the scriptures. He said he came not to bring peace, but with a
sword - which is actually the anti-thesis of what the Messiah was to do. He
said to obey the ten commandments, but he did not do much in the way of
honoring his father and mother. He said he came to bring the word of God,
then he preached in secret to only his disciples on supposedly "key" issues.
I could go on and on and on about a vast majority of that which is found in
the bible about this man and how it's a lot of bunk. However, my point was,
I don't personally think that he earns a place on the "good" list. There
isn't enough historical documentation of him, his existence, or his actual
preachings and teachings, and what we do have to go on shows him to be as
much a fantatical zeolot as some really "good" guy who preached all about
love. There are individuals, I am sure, that have existed that have done far
much greater than he and are a lot closer to our time than 2,000 years ago.
In fact, I don't even think he can actually be credited with starting
chrisitianity, that bane of society can be laid at Paul's doorstep.
Mari

From: "DaveW"
How about the Marquis de Sade? I'm embarrassed to write the details of
his perversions but, the real reason I'm nominating him is the legacy he
leaves. People are still very much into his shit.Of course putting him
on a 'superstars of sin' list would probably only add to the pain...

From: "Christen L"
Okay-
Well I don't have any more evil people except for this one guy I know, but
he wouldn't make the top 100. Any way, I thought about your list and how you
said how it was easier for us to think of evil people and I think it was
easier to think of good people. I recognized many more of the good people
than I did the evil. I want to tell you that I think the Beatles should be
added to the good list. If you just listen to the songs they wrote, they
talk about things like all you need is love and about how where all the
lonely people come from and it makes you think... What if all the world (or
even all the world leaders) thought this way?? There would be no fighting,
and I believe it would eliminate all suffering. And that is my plea for the
Beatles to be on the good list. As to why some people find it easier to
think of evil people, I believe that the reason is that it is much simpler
as humans to think of others as being inferior to our selves than it is to
think of them as superior. Thank you for reading this and if you would
contact me with more of your views on what I have said that would be great.
My email is cllacey@worldnet.att.net so let me know. If you would like to
post what I have said that would be fine, but please do not put my name or
email address on line. Thanks!!

From: Babe F
Ted Bundy,
Jeffrey Dahmer.
Ok -- here's my "ignorance" or "forgetfulness" -- that Japanese General
who "ran" the Japanese war camps during WW2, I can't remember his name
-- though I'm certain you know to whom I refer!!!!!!

Good: Harriet Tubman

From: "William K.":
Bogdan Kmelnitza, leader of one of the largest Cossack tribes, butchered
and tortured tens of thousands in a massive pogrom.

"Jennifer L":
Cliff,
I'm new to your web site but find it very interesting.
Regarding Vlad - boy, you sure opened a can of worms here didn't you.

I'm curious about Marius' argument. He seems to question your sources
of information on details that happened over 500 years ago, however, he
then expects us to believe that everything the bible contains is 100%
factual.
Myself, I tend to question anything I read as it is solely the opinion
or understanding of the person that wrote it. Same goes for any history
books or the bible.

You apparently are intrigued by difficult questions - so here's
mine....
How do we really know what happened in the past??
The written word, as I said above, is someones interpretation of events,
even pictures are subject to our own interpretation.
Perhaps everything that happens is mearly our own perspective there is
no one answer that fits as perfectly correct.

From: "Emilio G"
I believe Gen. Augusto Pinochet, ex dictator of Chile, should be on your
"Evil List". He murdered and tortured thousands of men, women and children
in Chile and around the world. Mass grave sites are still being found
(unearthed) today, over 20 years after the military coup in 1973. A
slaughter where, military jets and tanks were used against farmers, factory
workers and University students armed with small arms, rocks, slingshots
etc.

Also, many families were destroyed and separated; due to those who were
forced to flee and were exiled to countries throughout the world. Many
second and even third generation Chileans continue to suffer from this evil
man. His actions destroyed a goal, a movement, a dream; inspired by Dr.
Salvador Allende, who was executed by Pinochet's henchmen, in the
Presedential Palace he was democratically elected into.

Thanks for your time Cliff.

Chilean survivor

From: Fritzmichele G
I think you should add Francois Duvalier and a.k.a. (Papa doc) and his
son Jean-Claude Duvalier(Baby doc) both ex dictatorial presidents of
Haiti.The total of their reign went from 1957 to 1986.I think you should
get into that and find out more about them. And tell me if they are
possible candidats for the top 100 evil people in history.

From: AhB4dog
J. Edgar Hoover:
his abuse of power caused untold suffering and maintained a national attitude
of fear for years.

From: "Kallisti B"
Hi there,
It has been very entertaining reading your list and the criticisms
of others, but I was very disappointed to see that only one person
mentioned a musician. Music is a very powerful medium, eliciting a
wide variety of emotions through complex rhythms and patterns, and I
feel that there are a few musicians who are worthy of being on your
good list, however far down the list that might be. Among those whom
I feel have struck a chord (no pun intended) with many people,
spanning a somewhat large time-frame are as follows: the classicals,
such as Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Lizst, et. al. Also, for a
more recent addition, I would like to add The Beatles. They emerged
in a time when not just our country, but much of the world was going
through major changes, political and otherwise. They were a beautiful
voice for a generation, nay, generationS! They touched the hearts and
minds of millions of people with their intriguing and thoughtful
lyrics and music, not to mention their outspokenness on many issues.
It takes a hell of a band to outlast three decades and to still affect
new listeners. I know they have changed my life, as I'm sure they've
changed many others. Also, I was somewhat disappointed to see that
more writers were not brought to light, Shakespear being the foremost
in my mind. He challenged the ideas and norms of his society with his
prolific writings, which are still required reading for school
children hundreds of years later. Also on the literary side, I would
like to include the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Sappho, Homer and
others who have outlived the test of time, forcing people to think in
new ways, both then and centuries later. I would also like to point
out the writings of both Aldous Huxley and George Orwell for their
far-sightedness in the way our world COULD be if things continue to go
as they are now. I would also include, on a more personal note, Dr.
Timothy Leary, for trying to expand, educate, and enlighten the minds
of millions with his theories and writings. I'm sure there are more
that I would add to the list, but at least, as of now, I can't think
of any more. Good news for you!

From: "Shanna S"
Hi. You have Moses credited on your top ten list as being the originator
of the Sabbath day. It was actually God that instituted this day of rest
for mankind, Moses simply obeyed orders. Read Exodus chapter 20, verses
8-11, in the Holy Bible. The thanks goes to God.

Also, you credited Jesus for preaching "love," but He also showed
mankind the way to find peace, purpose, and meaning in life, as well as
security in the afterlife. He and his followers were, and are, taught to
be honest, hard working, gracious, faithful, and peace loving. I found
the write up on Jesus to be painfully thin compared to the list of
Buddhist qualities.

Mike:
Hi. You have Moses credited on your top
ten list as
being the originator of the Sabbath day. It was actually God that
instituted
this day of rest for mankind, Moses simply obeyed orders. Read Exodus
I see most of your "Evil" figures are political leaders and most of
your "Good" examples are religious figureheads. This shows a bias in
your thought patterns that is not altogether rational.
I personally would shuffle most of the religious figures to the evil
list as religion usually leads to the prejudices that justify most of
the mass killings that put the political figures on the "Evil" list.
I feel that most of the political figgures that you listed are no more
evil than any other wartime leaders.
What about all the innocents that were burned to death by napalm during
the Viet Nam war? Do we put these deaths on the head of the president
who presided over that conflict??
I think "GOD" should go on to the top of the evil list because of all
the attrocities he allowed to be done in his name over the centuries.
(Ok, so actually I am an athiest who thinks more harm than good has been
caused by religion but even though "GOD" doesn't exist he should still
go the top of the list) (there, I have just displayed my own biases)
In the end, I feel that your "good" and "evil" list is moot and
pointless although it is sure to cause some interesting discussions.

Romina C (Malta):
I see most of your "Evil" figgures are
political leaders
and most of your "Good" examples are religious figureheads. This shows a
bias in
your thought patterns that is not altogether rational.
I personally would shuffle most of the
religious
I've just came to know of your website yesterday, and it left me fascinated.
It is now the opening web page of my browser. I have already forwarded your
page to a number of friends!

I am writing in response to your 'good and evil' nominations. The first
thought that came to mind was to add Lady Diana as a very good person
indeed, for we all know the goodness and love she shared with the more needy
and sick people. I believe that many people would agree to my line of
thinking, and it would be nice to see her name on your list.
Keep up the good and fascinating work,

Jim W
Hi Cliff:
I'm surprised you did not include the most influential politician of the
20th Century, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin).

Ulyanov founded the Soviet Union. He also founded the CHEKA, the
predecessor to the KGB. The Soviet Union subjugated Eastern Europe from
1945 to 1989. The KGB killed a huge number of people, even after Stalin
died. The number of people killed by the KGB, on the orders of Lenin,
Stalin, and their successors, is huge, more than 50 million.

Ulyanov, in my opinion, was a sociopath. He took no pleasue in killing,
just as he took no pleasure in anything. He was responsible for killing 3
million people in his 4 years in power (1917 -1921, when he had a stroke and
was moved to the background by Stalin).

While 3 million may not seem like a lot, in comparison with Stalin, Hitler,
and Mao, it still puts him in the top 10 murders of the 20th century.

Thanks for an interesting web page.

From: "T.J.R"
BILL CLINTON is the spawn of Satan ! Not just for a life time of
lies, trickery,links to murders,(WACO) crimes,pervertions
etc.etc.Including TREASON against America ! Yet he was able to brain
wash so many people.

From Chris:
What about Cain? Talk about a pioneer, the first man to commit a crime a
gainst fellow man, and to start out he went with nothing short of murder.
While he lacks the body count, (though you could say he killed 1/4th of
the world's population), he did set the patch that those on this list followed.
This list owes alot to our frient Cain.

Sultan Abdul-Hamid II should be on your list. Remember what he did to
the Armenians?

Let's not forget about Oliver Cromwell. He took rule of Britain
centuries ago and then stole Ireland and made it a British territory

Elaine D.:
Definitely the evil Margaret Thatcher and her equally evil Government
who for almost 20 years brought misery, poverty and deprevation to
millions of working class people here in the UK.

Amanda W.:
I'm not to sure I agree with all of your listings, although it was a
novel idea. Mao Zedong, for example, honestly thought he was doing the
right thing. Does that make what happened go away, well no, but I think
that he can hardly be compared to Ivan the Terrible or serial killers.
Mao was willing to make sacrifices for the good of China, and
unfortunately overestimated his countrymens' own desires, and built his
reforms on ideologies unstead of science and fact.

And some of your military listings (Geghis Khan, for example) I have to
disagree with for a similar reason: These leaders first of all were out
to expand their countries' glory, and also, that is simply how war was
fought in those days. Not as neat as the way the US won WWII, with a
nice fat atomic bomb in heavily poopulated cities, nor as
technologically advanced as biological warefare, but effective none the
less. The numbers of people killed in ancient wars are a drop in the
bucket compared to modern warefare. The relative level of cruelty
depends on a lot of circumstances.

In any event, I was dissapointed that you allowed yourself to cop out on
some of your evil listings. Over all, however, I had a marvelous time
stalling writing my essays, to which I had better return.

From: clever
Lincoln should be on the evil list, he made Americans kill each other.
And his goal wasn't to free slaves, because he had slaves of his own.

From: "seidensticker"
You mentioned the different views of people on your list (Vlad seen by
Romanians and non-Romanians). Another example is Tamerlane, ruler of
one of the offshoots of the Ghengis Khan's empire. In Samarkand,
Tamerlane is seen as a great ruler, though his methods were ruthless.

From: "Paul E"
i don't believe you didn't have the marquis de sade on the list of evil ppl.

i know many ppl into the bdsm scene might object to it how ever if you can
stomach his books you will soon find out how evil that man truely was.

on passage i remember him stomping on a pregnant woman's belly until she
aborted the baby. he shoved hot pokers up both the vaginal and rectal
orifices of women and then once they scarred over he would do it again.

i haven't read his books but i have read some passages and he deserves to be
on that list even higher up than some that you do have on the list

From: Adlihassa
I am very disappointed that Abraham (Peace be upon him) the
patriarch of Jews, Christians, and Muslims does not appear on your good
list. Also the prophet Mohammad(Peace be upon him) deserves to be at
the top as he reafirmed the teachings of all the prophets from Adam to
Jesus(Peace be upon him) before him. As to Mohammad being a war
monger as Mr. Ross S. states,is entirely false. The Koran has to be
read along with the traditions in order to understand what happened
during that time. Mohammad(PBUH) and his followers were persecuted
because they denied the many gods of their parents and their
ancestors. These conflicts escalated into major confrontations and
even war amongst the various Arab tribes of that era. Mohammad(PBUH)
and his followers were only protecting themselves.The Pagans of that
time wanted the muslims dead just like Pharoah wanted Moses(PBUH) and
his people dead. Mohammad(PBUH) only taught what was revealed to him
which was for all mankind to know and worship our maker and to respect
your fellow man. Islam is a religion of peace. A true Muslim upon
meeting anyone must say Salaam Alikum(Peace upon you). And the word
Islam means(Peace or submission). A muslim is someone who is at peace
or a submittor to the will of his maker.

From: "Earl Cruz"
Dear Cliff,
I found your list of evil and good people entertaining and educational. I
believe the reason why it was hard to add more people to your good list
because a lot of good deeds are not recorded especially in the early part of
history. Also I think that the true good people are also inherently humble
and thus their deeds are unrecorded.
If you define people who donate money for charities as good then you have
more to add to your list. Although I believe that using wealth to do good is
relatively easy for the wealthy and thus do not involve any personal
sacrifice. If so should they be included in the good list?
Sincerely,
Earl

From: "Sergio Glogowski"
The people I would add to the List of good people would be:
Itzak Rabin (Nobel Peace Prize, Prime Minister of Israel, killed).
Elie Wiesel (writer, Holocaust survivor, Nobel Peace Prize)
Mordechai Anilevich (leader of a revolution in the ghetto of Warsov, killed)
Ernesto "Che" Guevara (liberated Cuba, killed)
Nelson Mandela (fighted for the black rights in South Africa)
Steven Biko ( fighted for the black rights in South Africa)
Regards.
Gadi Glogowski

From: "aristeas"
Dear Cliff,
Having read most of the replies to your list of Top Good/Evil People In
History I'm struck by the amount of knee-jerk vitriol, prejudice,
ranting and incoherence of many of the replies. So let's keep this brief
and to the point ..

Eichman was merely a functionary, a follower of orders. His fame (or
infamy) is derived entirely from his arrest and trial in Israel. He is
the only Holocaust perpetrator to be so tried, and his guilt has been
made to serve for those (much worse) who were never brought to justice.

Heydrich built the 'police state' organisation of the Third Reich
(including the Gestapo, SD, and concentration camps) and ran it until
his death in '42. He organised and chaired the Wannsee Conference, which
planned the Holocaust, the Einsatzgruppen and the death camps.When the
Einsatzgruppen were created for the 1941 invasion of Russia and the
resulting murder of millions of Jews (and others), it was on his orders,
to his plan and his original idea. He developed the ideological training
program for Einsatzgruppen leaders, necessary to 'steel' the resolve of
those who would undertake this epoch-making crime. He opened the
training program, he gave the valedictory speech, he inspired the evil
'worldview' (weltanschauung) which they took into the killing fields.

On his death in 1942 (the only senior Nazi assassinated on Allied
instructions) thousands were murdered in retaliation, the village of
LIdice was obliterated, and 'Aktion Reinhard' - the pogrom staged in his
honour involved the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Jews (the only
historical figure so commemorated, as far as I can recall). He was seen
at the time as a possible future successor to Hitler and the greatest
threat in the regime..

Possibly the most demonic figure of the Third Reich, Heydrich directly
inspired, planned, created and led the terror mechanisms which resulted
in the deaths of millions and created a legacy of misery and suffering
which persists to this day. Someone had to take the genocidal wish of
the Fuhrer and make it real through diligent, creative, purposeful,
practical means. This was Heydrich, a man who enjoyed personal
involvement in torture in the cells of Gestapo Headquarters, a man who
brought all the elements of terror, political oppression and state
violence together under one organisation with him at it's head (the
RSHA), a man feared by his immediate suprior, the creatively-myopic
Heinrich Himmler.

To the list of 'Good People' -

Might I suggest replacing Lincoln (a much propagandised figure with a
'mythic' quality at odds with his actual historical record) with William
Wilberforce (1759-1833).

All religions have tolerated slavery, but only Christianity has fought
against it and successfully seen it eradicated in the Western World. As
the prime mover behind the Anti-Slavery Movement Wilberforce (along with
his fellow Quakers) has a legacy probably second to none in the
amelioration of human suffering in history.While many scientists
(Lister, Jenner etc) have made a huge difference through their work,
Wilberforce's work was entirely in improvement on moral grounds. His was
the voice that called the Christian West to live up to it's creed of
love and compassion (not, mark you, the voice of the Catholic Church or
of Lutheran and Protestant Churches).

Wilberforce's legacy was the first Anti-Slavery Law in Britain, and the
spread of this as a moral force throughout the world. Entire races and
peoples owe him their liberty, their equality, their rights as human
beings. In terms of lasting impact his place in history is greater than
that of Ghandi - Indian 'untouchables' still bear the brunt of
caste-prejudice, and violent suppression of their rights.

Quote from Wilberforce November 1793
"Never, never will we desist till we ... extinguish every trace of this
bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back to the history of
these enlightened times will scarce believe that it has been suffered to
exist so long a disgrace and dishonor to this country."

Regards, Aristeas

From: "Suzy/Todd Lebo"
I'm sure the Aztec would nominate Cortez to one of the two lists and didn't
something happen to the American Indian?
Todd Lebo
author, teacher, wine vendor

From: Karolina Topola

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE FACT THAT I NOTICED YOUR LISTS OF BOTH
EVIL AND GOOD PEOPLE DO NOT INCLUDE ANY WOMEN... AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW
WHY. I BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE MORE REALISTIC PEOPLE ON YOUR "GOOD"
LIST (NOT LIKE JESUS, BUDDHA, MOSES ETC) , DUE TO THE FACT THAT ON THE EVIL
LIST YOU DO NOT INCLUDE PEOPLE LIKE, LET'S SAY "SATAN". I AM SHOCKED THAT
YOU DO NOT HAVE PRINCESS DIANA ON YOUR GOOD LIST.

WITH REGARDS, KAROLINA

From: "David Griggs"

First of all, I really like your site, but there
are a few problems that should be addressed. First, Abraham Lincoln should not
be given any credit for the freeing of the slaves. That is just a twisted lie
that he cared about the slaves. I've read in countless history books that if he
could keep the union together and free no slaves, he would, if he could free one
slave and keep the union together, he would, and even if he had to free every
last slave to keep the union together he would. For this I discredit him for
that remark. He was only interested in his image and position, not the
slaves.

Second, I know the ranking is just personal
opinion, but why is Jesus Christ in fourth place? If I didn't want you to read
this letter knowing I was most sincere I would certainly have plenty of
unpleasant things to say about Jesus Christ being fourth place!

From Rod:

Some of your correspondents mentioned his acts, but not his name-
US Gen. Harold 'Hap' Arnold (WWII)
Liked to fight wars by firebombing civillians. Responsible for turning
Dresden, Germany and Tokyo, Japan into
Dante-esque Infernos. Also recomended using the A-Bomb. To see a graphic
portrayal of the effects of firebombing on civillians, watch the animated
movie "Grave of the Fireflies", from Japan.
Rod

Rodney J Shepard

I should kill you for saying all these people are evil. the most evil
people of all are the people who run the Government they have down more
damage to this land and killed more people for no reason at all. They
go into war because our country is going poor and draft people and
expect them to go and die for the country that they were only born in
and didn't have a choice to move.
they will draft an 18 year old kid who has just barely gotten to start
his life and then have to die for some bullshit nation that is only
worried about money, and power. They don't gove a damn about me you or
any one else. For them to be in control is more important. And humans
industrialize this land kill helpless animals, poison the air, land and
the water. So my point is humans in general are the worst of all there
is no good human. They take from the land and don't give back a damn
thing. the only damn thing that is worthless greedy and does not produce
anything but things for himself.

From: "Kristopher Dylan Andrews"
Like Vlad Tepes Dracula, The Great Khan Temujin is revered by natives of
Mongolia, and I think that an objective review of history would have to
place the USA higher on your evil list than Ghengis Khan (or Dracula for
that matter) especially in context of the potential for good and evil in
each case.
Also, Guatoma Buddha, besides his practice of hedonism, drug use, and social
deviance, is an ironic choice for either list since the philosophy based on
his teachings culminates in a non-dualistic point of enlightenment that
embraces detachment and inaction (to dissolve ones karma ultimately).
Abraham Lincon was not nearly as virtuous as intelligent (emancipating only
slaves in rebel states!), and it is suspect to praise a US president for
being one of the last heads of state in the world to denounce and abolish
slavery.
Further, it is a logical truism that any tribal leader in a position like
Moses' allegedly was in would be able and certain to make up new laws for
their people, and I am certain that most in the past did a better job of it.
Not to mention the fact that many Native American tribes had less than a 24
hour work week before being blessed with European puritanical tyranny,
persecution, and drudgery.

I submit that if "good" and "evil" exist at all beyond the realm of
philosophical discussion, that they can be simplified to a measure of how
sincere each of us are in trying to understand ourselves and each other, how
honest we are to ourselves and each other, and how well we accept and act
upon our complete freedom and responsibility as individuals. Or, even
simpler, the two may be only poorly cast sides of the coin of truth, defined
with little regard for relativity, objectivity, or even natural law.

Kris Andrews

From: Susan Shipman

Part of the reason it is easier to think of evil
people rather than good is that evil is flashier and
memorable and good can be the cumulation of lots of
little things over the course of a lifetime. Many
unknown people have probably done good that benefits
the entire world. Or, is good merely the absence of
evil?

I think one person who should be added to the evil
list is the Pope for his stance on birth control.
What greater evil can be done than to ruin this lovely
planet? The ruination of the planet will come from
overburdening it with a population that cannot be
adequately fed, clothed, housed, freed from disease,
etc. When the planet is ruined, we shall all die.
Many of the Pope's followers are in poorer countries,
such as Mexico and other Latin American nations, too.

I do not mean to be anti-Catholic. I feel the same
about certain Protestant issues, too. It's just that
the number of people involved in this birth control
issue is so great.

Sue

From: "Reg Salter"

Interesting list of good "People". There is no confirmable proof that =
half of these "People" even existed.

From: "W. H. Bryant"
I don't understand how you can rate Jesus Christ as 4th on the list of
good. I believe He should be first. He did not only preach love, He is
love. He died for the sins of the entire world-the entire world-the
people of today, tomorrow, yesterday, the future,the present, the
past-for everyone that they may not perish, but have ever lasting life.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only son,
that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting
life."

From: "Marcus Rauchfuss"
Hello Cliff!

Your site is really one of the cool examples for good stuff on the WWW. But
enough compliments!

I find your good/evil scale most interesting, it is, as one might expect,
biased but since we are all influenced by our (pick one any or all) upbrin
ging/moral values/religion/social circles/education being biased is to be
expected. Personally (and my views are just as biased) I would remove Linc
oln and add a number of US Presidents (possibly including Lincoln) somewhe
re between ranks 7-10 on the evil list for being responsible for the most
effective genocide in the known history of mankind: the slaughtering of th
e Native Americans. This propably even beats Vlad Tepes (who should not be
that high on the list) since a number of treaties were signed with the Na
tive Americans only to be broken a few years or months later. I would repl
ace Adolf Hitler with "The Nazi Government" since people like Goering, Goe
bbels and Himler were no less evil only less prominent.
I would also remove Ghengis Khan from the evil list, he was a brutal conqu
eror but he made Asias trade routes secure and in the end that aided Europ
e A LOT. And if you keep him on the list you should put the aformentioned
US presidents on the list because they fit into the same category (from a
certain point of view).

And I don't know the guys nam but who ever is responsible for the appeal w=
hich lead to creation being tought in some southern and midwest States ins=
tead of evolution should be on the evil list because religous bigotry whic=
h leads to people being educated with lies and myths IS evil.

OK, see you!

Marcus

From: "bmeacham"

I am saying it is easier to be negative than positive, because I do think
that there have been far more evil people in this world than good. I can't
rate them, and I can't say they are the goodest people the world has ever
seen. I think it may be one aspect of goodness to be humble and consequently
run the risk of not being recognized. I agree with all your choices,
including Jesus, Abraham Lincoln, and Mother Theresa, I also think that
goodness has different aspects to it, and it depends on the value judgements
of the rater (or even his or her feelings at the time they do the rating) to
include someone on the list.

Some people off the top of my head who haven't been written about yet:

St. Elizabeth Ann Seton
Confucius
Zoroaster
Joan of Arc
Galileo who stuck to his guns and therefore was prosecuted by the
Inquisition for insisting that the world revolved around the sun
and his daughter, Sister Marie Celeste, who lived a life of obscurity, poor
health and poverty but emotionally and intellectually supported her father
during his prosecution and died shortly after his release at a relatively
young age)

That is what I mean by people who are not recognized who are just as good if
not more so. They support the people who do the great acts.

I also have information about a system of divination that you might be
interested in. I haven't had experience with it yet, but the developer
promises great things. Her name is Katherine Cover Sabin, and it is called
the Associative Card Code.

Barbara

From: "Gidge S"
Dear Dr. Pickover,
First I have to say that I'm amazed by your page and your books.
I'm the only teenage girl I know who gets into heated discussions
about the fourth dimension and time travel, and I've only yet read
two of them (I'm saving the rest for thsoe loooong family car rides.
Yikes). Anyway, this email is in regards to your list of the "top
ten" good and evil people.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said that "If only there were evil people
somewher, insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary
only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the
line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human
being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
Therefore, if the capacity for good and evil is in everyone, I don't
see how anyone person can be labeled as ultimately evil or ultimately
good. Of course, that is from a detached viewpoint. As a living,
emotional person, there's no way I'm going to argue that Hitler
wasn't one evil dude.

Selecting candidates for your good list is even harder. Millions
are eternally grateful to Mozart for his music, but does this mean
he's "good"? I can't tell you the various degrees of joy I go through
when I'm singing along to a Beatles album, but I don't think this
should qualify them. Or maybe it should. The only thing that's
concrete about your list is that there will always be people who
disagree.

Sincerely,
Jane S.

From: Thomas Bodine

Hi Cliff
Like the web site.

I am living on Antigua in the West Indies.

I just returned from visiting St. Kitts where they
have a place called Bloody Bay where the Europeans
massacred 2000 Carib indians. Evil or Not?

They say the indians were about to do the same to
them.

I'm not happy with those replies that infer there's no
absolutes with regards to killing or murder.

I want absolutes. But then maybe there aren't any.

From: Mel Montgomery

Just finished scanning around your good and evil page and I came
to the conclusion that the idea of political leaders as being good or
evil is just not a good idea. The problem with being a politician or
a leader is the fact that you must (at least try to) make your people
agreeable with you. Biggest example would be Mousolini of Italy. The
only reason why he wanted to attack Abysinnia was to get the "love and
support" of his people. And (according to some sources) France let
him do it! So in your grand scheme of things with evil and good, the
French Ambassador and Mousolini should be considered evil. But if we
continue with this method, then pretty much one could find good and
evil in every political leader in history. Even Vlad. Even Hitler.
Even Churchill and Gladstone. Genuinely good people are also
difficult. The only ones that seem that way are religious leaders.
So now we're getting the whole "separation of church and state" in
which most Americans hold so dear. But if you're looking for somebody
who has CONTRIBUTED to this world, well then, you've hit it spot on!
But I would have to say, I would add such talented people as The
Beatles for changing our music and singing about love. (and yes, I
agree that they have their "bad" or "evil" sides as well.) And pretty
much one could add anybody talented like them. Such as Steven
Speilburg for bringing us such thought provoking films as "Schindler's
List" and "Saving Private Ryan." Hell, if it wasn't for Speilburg,
only a small amount of historians and their spouses would know
anything about Schindler! One person who wrote, talked about Vlad
being a literary inspiration. Well then! If we're still talking of
contributions, how about the literary scene? Jack Keroac, Edgar Allen
Poe, John Keats, etc etc. In all reality, this could go on forever.
And in all reality, it is a question worth asking. But like all
questions like these, it's too broad and difficult to answer. Where
does one weigh go! od and evil but in their own head. To open it all
up to everybody, well that takes guts. Nice job.

Best regards, and good luck
Melissa M.

From: Gargoyle

Please remove Abraham Lincoln and Moses from your 'good' list - or
transfer them Hitler or Mao as well.

Moses was a Jewish crazed religious fanatic and a butcher of
thousends. For example, he destroyed completely destroyed the world's
first city of Jericho killing every man, woman and children (40,000?)
in the world's oldest city, with exception of a pair of traitors - and
the Bible-writers were proud of it. His other infamous orders incude
ruthless massacre of 5,000 Jews after he returned from a mountain
where 'God' gave him so-called '10 Commendments' (also mentioned in
Old Testament) or a proud confess to 'summoning' of '10 Egypt Plagues'
(looks like he liked 10 number) what - according to the 'Holy Bible' -
resulted in death of thousends Egyptians, including every first-born
son in every family in the land. I can't understand how this kind of
lunatic psychopath can be thought as 'good'!

And as for Abe Lincoln...let me quote something:

Abraham Lincoln, born in 1809 and assassinated in 1865, was sincere
in his desire to free the slaves. His debates with Judge Steven
Douglas are legendary. To this day Lincoln is a symbol of integrity
and honesty in our country. He was also a racist and believed only in
the white race. On September 18, 1858 in Charleston in a debate
against Douglas, Lincoln was asked how he felt about "negro
citizenship" he replied, "I am not in favor of negro citizenship."[1]
Lincoln was for freeing slaves and disbanding that evil institution
of slavery, but he did not want "Negroes" in the country. During the
mid-1800s, African-Americans were not wanted in the United States.
Abolitionist wanted to free them, make them Christians and send them
back to Africa. African-Americans were not considered to be on the
same level as white Americans. Nevertheless, the fact that Lincoln
freed the slaves, yet did not want them in the country does not mesh
well with his being considered a great humanitarian.
In addition to the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln wrote a truly
remarkable proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation was written to
free the slaves. However, he mentioned freeing the slaves in "states
or designated parts of a state that people whereof shall be in
rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward and
forever free."[2] The proclamation was truly a derogatory statement
against the Southern states only. The Northern states were to free
their slaves also. Some did and some did not.
Earlier, in May 1862, Lincoln received a letter from the Headquarters
of the Southern Army, which basically said Georgia, Florida and South
Carolina slaves were set free.[3] However, Lincoln sent word back in
a proclamation revoking that letter from the Southern Army. His
reason was "not any other commander or person, has been authorized
by the government of the United States to make a proclamation
declaring the slaves of any state free...is altogether void"[4]
Thus, Lincoln thought he could set slaves free when they were not
part of his country, but the South could not set them free when the
slaves were part of the Confederate States.
Lincoln, Spokesman for White Supremacy
Abraham Lincoln's legend is truly exaggerated. No other president has
had so much written about himself. One might believe that Lincoln was
a greater President than Thomas Jefferson or even George Washington.
Although Lincoln was against slavery he was also against "Negroes".
In the South, having "Negroes" in the country was never an issue.
Unfortunately, much of what Lincoln stood for was opposed to Southern
culture, and he personally was against the South. In another debate
with Judge Steven Douglas, Lincoln himself shows one more reason why
he should not be immortalized. On September 18, 1858 he had this to
say:
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of
bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the
white and black racesthat I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of
making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold
office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in
addition to this that there is a physical difference between the
white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two
races living together on terms of social and political equality. And
inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there
must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any
other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the
white race.[5]
So there stands Mr. Abraham Lincoln, a spokesman for White Supremacy!
To be fair it must be pointed out that a many of Southerners and
Northerners felt the same as Lincoln. But to immortalize the man who
freed the slaves, and claim he was righteous or just, is wrong. By
contrast, there were many in the South who did not own slaves and
worked comfortably alongside African-Americans.
Any winning side in a war will usually be considered the moral and
just side. The winners are marked as heroes for saving their side and
even for saving (as well as conquering) the opposing side. The North
was thought to have saved the American union. "They fought to save
the American government. They fought to free the slaves." What this
myth hides is the real reason the North went to war with the South.
The North was trying to protect the Union, but the South was not part
of this union during the war and shortly before the war.

Not mentioning his ultra-racism towards American Indians, and murder
of tens of thousends Confederate civilians and prisoners of war. This
man should be on the 'evil' list instead.

And now, some statistics - to know who were the XXth Century biggest
killers (these are _minimal_ numbers):

And now the under-million murderers, like Saddam Hussein, Leonid
Brezhniev, Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin, Slobodan Milosevic, Karadic,
Franco, Pinochet, and dozens of other fascist, communist, nationalist
and religious regimes across the world.

Most probably near 170,000,000 people have been murdered in cold-blood
by governments. The most such killing was done by the Soviet Union
(near 62,000,000 people), the communist government of China is second
(near 35,000,000), followed by Nazi Germany (almost 21,000,000), and
Nationalist China (some 10,000,000). Lesser megamurderers include WWII
Japan, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, WWI Turkey, communist Vietnam, post-WWII
Poland, Pakistan, and communist Yugoslavia. The most intense genocide
was carried out by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, where they killed over
30 percent of their subjects in less than four years.

Gargoyle, Poland

From: "Taylor, Henry"

Enjoyed the page but would like to suggest a deeper exploration (perhaps on
another linked page) of the criteria for the greatest extremes of evil and
good. I would agree, for example, that DeSadean delight would be a good
criteria for profound evil. But, along-side that would need to be an
acknowledgement of the equally great evil of compassionless expedient murder
and suffering of "non-combatants" (for lack of a better word). The dropping
of the A-bomb may technically have saved more lives than it took, at least
in the short run....but the callousness and indiscriminate quality of the
event, the equivocation of infants with trained and cognizant combatants, is
unacceptable I would think it qualifies even with the remorse of the major
engineers and initiators of the project.

Another aspect might be that Good and evil exist on a continuum and
side-by-side. A person may reveal both qualities, both extremes of good and
evil...the point, as with Vlad would be to weigh them against one another.
Could Vlad's goodness outweigh or even balance his evil? It might be claimed
to mitigate his evil aspect but then do the extremes on both sides match up.
How many lives did Vlad bring into the world and protect from suffering of
violence hunger? This would be in a state in a positive or above the norm
aspect relative to Romania and surrounding states of the time... Put simply,
how many lives received the benefit of elevation to upper middle class by
Vlad and his policies? How many lives were equally changed for the better by
Roosevelt? Maybe Roosevelt receives note for both goodness and
evilness....his evilness might land him on the Ten Worst list but does his
goodness get him onto the Ten Best list?

Just more stuff to think about I guess
-Henry

From georg.

henri dunant- founder of the red cross, nobelprize winner

From: NaziJS3

I think Josph Stalin should be first on the evil list because he killed
billions of peaents, political and military leaders, an entire political
party, and anyone else that oppose him. He also brian washed Russa's children
to turn in thier parent if they oppsed him at all so he can kill them.

and Dina R.

I think Lincoln should be on the good list because when he did abolish
slavery he lost a lot of suport during the war which lead to riots and death
of alot of Blacks IN the North and BY Northeners

and I think Jesus Christ should be first not just because he is God and that
he died for us but he dedicated his life in bringing others to God and
brought peace and healing to a terrible time

From: LMDFMY
Personally, I think you're right on target with those you've put on your
good and evil lists.

Poor Marius' problem arose, I think, because you, like George Orwell in
his essays, paint very graphic word-pictures that force readers to see the
uncomfortable. Therefore, insignificant things --like typos -- became his
defense against the unpalatable. Then too, other nations do not typically
air their dirty laundry like we do.

So do you think achieving social order makes ruthlessness non-evil?

From: "Heidi Milton"

From: mb

Dear Sir,

I find your list fascinating beyond belief. The diverseness of the
recipients of the most evil and most good men and women to ever live show a
broad knowledge of history and if not a great degree at least some degree of
study. Although I think that a larger description of some people on the
page would make it a better resource for students. Maybe birth and death
dates and a larger description for Jesus and Adolph Hitler. I must admit I
do find one fault with the page, Carl Djerassi on the same page with Jesus?
I think not and Abraham Lincoln was a good man but his influence was nowhere
near the scope of any one else on the list. I think you should reconsider
his place. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely

Dr. mb

From: Alfred Lehmberg

Happened on your list regarding the top ten good and evil. Have a look
at Chrispher Hitchens' book, "The missionary position, mother teresa in
theory and practice" for citations on why she should be jerked right off
your top ten good list... she's not bad enough to be added to your bad
list (not quite) but she should certainly come off the good one.

One of the more minor points? Think about the kind of medical care she
received when she got ill (and it was the finest) compared to what she
provided to the sick and dying of Calcutta as a matter of institutional
doctrine... the woman was just another evil religious fundamentalist,
baptising Hindus and Moslems without their knowledge and against their
will.

From: Rittergould

H.H., his real last name was Mudgett, was indeed an extremely evil person.
He was certainly more enterprising and creative than the average serial
killer. However, I suspect that he was included on your list due to the
mistaken belief that he killed about 200 people. That figure is probably
grossly inflated. Nobody really knows how many people he killed. Before he
was executed he confessed to having killed 28 people.

I nominate King Leopold II of Belgium whose empire building schemes in the
Congo resulted in the deaths of millions of Africans, an international
scandal which has been largely forgotten, but not entirely so thanks to Adam
Hochschild's excellent book, King Leopold's Ghost

From: "tenbear123"
Josef Mangela (Doctor Death)
WWII under Hitler. Experimented with twins. Tortured them to see how
much pain they could take before they died.
Katy

From: "J.D."
Here are some thoughts I had in response to your web page.

> Why is it easier to think of evil examples than good ones?
The forces and influences of evil are currently thriving.
> Developing this list was not an easy task due to the complexity
of human personalities and the fact that goodness and evilness
depend on the perspective of the time.
I suggest that what is good and evil does not vary over time,
just as light and dark. What may change over time is the
influence of evil, and the human perception of what is evil. Some
humans may even become at peace with forms of evil, thus opening
the door for all kinds of atrocities. Evil may also draw strength
from confusion over what is good or evil.

Evil may offer much truth. It is the last few percentage points
of deception that is the key for evil to achieve its means. Evil
can be successful, and can offer good solutions to real problems.
Offered amidst the true solutions is the dark poison, masquerading
as yet another solution.

For example, the tolerance that allows benevolence towards fellow
humans despite their flaws is good. Evil would again preach
tolerance, but with the hidden agenda of legitimizing that which
advances the cause of evil. Ironically, evil could falsely
represent good and condemn intolerance against something that
harbors concealed evil, and thus breed intolerance against those
who truly stand for good.

Evil might also favor us to believe that we are imperfect and thus
necessarily evil. While we may be imperfect, we do have the power
to seek the truth and goodness. Just as an athlete's game
performance improves with practice, practicing good even down to
seemingly small things helps to combat evil in the world. But
practice works both ways. Evil will attempt to exploit every flaw
to its advantage, and may have much patience. Without
purposefully striving for goodness, a human may be an open target.

Kind regards,

- John

From: Liamror

GEORGE BUSH!!!!, Who ever was responsible for Red China and the rapes and
killing of many Chinese people. (I know he is Japanese.)

From: "Mister Wade"

I couldn't help but feel sick when I read that Moses was on your list of
good people. According to the Bible, he had ordered thousands of people to
be killed. There are entire pages of the Bible that say nothing other than
who to kill. This, of course, lead to fanatical murder for thousands of
years in the name of God. If God were real, he would be the king of evil
for commanding this. Most Christians think he is all loving, but if they
paid attention to the Bible they would see that God's message is to love few
and kill many.

From: Abnaki96

Add the piece of garbadge Mcveigh to the evil list. May he burn in hell for
all he has done.

From: Folktribunen

Dear Mr Pickover

I usually don't bother to write and tell my opinion about things on the
internet, but I must tell you that your discussion with the romanian Marius
and the irish woman deb about Vlad Tepes is very unintelligent and ignorant
from your side.

I cannot understand how you can call yourself Dr. and have such an ignorant
and stupid approach to historical matters. I have read to little to know if
Vlad Tepes is "evil" or "good". But I certainly know that if you want to
know something about historical matters, you cannot go the cinema and look
att Count Dracula. Why don't you read some books about the subject, and if
you think you don't have the time you shouldn't make a statement about it.

Regarding Clinton, you said to Deb say:
"I think the fact that you say Clinton is as evil as Hitler and as evil as
the leader of the Spanish Inquisition makes your point very clearly. I
suppose the six million Jews who Hitler gassed might not have agreed, but
who can tell for sure? But forget the Jews. They can't talk because they
died."

Well, I suppose that the countless Iraqi babies and women who were bombed
during the Gulf war might not agree with you that Clinton is a good guy.
Neither would the thousands of civilian serbs who were brutally bombed to
death by your dear mr Clinton in the last "war of freedom".

I think that you americans should try to consider that other people also
have an opinion about what you americans do. Maybe we europeans do not want
you to bomb our cities, kill our woman and children and try to rule over
governments with the help of your military powers.

I DO NOT say that Vlad is a good guy, for I am not familiar with the
subject. But I do say that Bill Clinton is a very, very evil person and that
the your american government is very very evil if I judge by your own
definition of evil.

If you can justify Clintons and your governments actions against the arab
people and the european peoples as something good, then you must understand
that other people can justify their leaders actions as something good.
Because Clintons actions when he is killing arab or european babies and
women is not less evil than Vlads actions when (If?) he killed romanian
babies and women.

By the way, if you do not understand this simple logic, I cannot understand
how you can call yourself an intellectual and a Dr.

Best Regards
Martin
My Reponse to Martin:

> Ref: Your note of Sat, 05 May 2001 16:29:57 +0200
>
> Hi, as a follw up to my previous note, would you consider
> Clinton as evil as Hitler?
> The reason I ask is that I think it's important for me to
> learn from other people's perspectives.
>
> Thanks, Cliff

Hello Cliff

Yes you can add my opinion to your page.

To your other question, I must answer no. I think that Clinton as a person
is much more evil than Adolf Hitler was. I do not have the time or patience
to try to get you to understand me, because I have learned from your
discussion with Marius that you will not listen to what I am saying. As a
matter of fact, you will not even try to understand how I am thinking and
reasoning.

As a tip: if you "americans" want to continue ruling the earth for another
hundred years or more; try not to be so oversatisfied with yourself and so
egocentric. This is neither a noble trait or a good strategy. Your behavior
to the rest of the world will punish the whole of your people.

Regards

Martin

From: "Bonnie Marinaccio"
so basically ivan the terrible was not terrible at all--he actually had an
physical disfigure with his spine causing him to have high dosages of
mercury in his body ( a form of medicine at the time) making him shake and
barely speak. he didnt even rule, but had nobles run the country and do
things for him

also ab lincoln raped his slaves
lara

From: "Waterman, Mathew"

I think one of the most important things to consider when judging whether
someone or whether an action is evil is in the rationalization. As seen in
your conversations regarding Vlad the Impaler vs. Clinton, and, similarly,
in many of the posts related to our own government, almost any action can be
rationalized away. For example, some of the respondants said that Vlad's
actions were, "necessary", or could not be understood today because that is
what was done, "back then." The crux of the issue becomes intention.

Put it this way: No one wakes up in the morning and decides they are going
to be evil. Every person on your "evil" list had some sort of
rationalization for their actions. As many pointed out, Vlad and Hitler
alike had the intention of doing good things for his countrymen while
passing off the amorphous "others" as the enemy. Their methods were the part
where they crossed the line. Likewise, each of us every day find ways to
rationalize our unduly harsh or unforgiving actions. Now, on the other side
of the coin, the people on the "good" list largely practiced forgiveness and
tolerance. To them there was little rationalization for cruel, callous
behavior.

Therefore, if one is to separate the "good" from the "bad" it is certainly
not going to be an issue of black and white. Instead, it can be looked at as
being more or less grey. Does this mean that Vlad should be considered
"evil" because, though he allegedly did help some of his country's poor, he
also tortured and murdered thousands and, more importantly, enjoyed it?
Personally, I would say this does qualify him as an evil human being. Did
Clinton lie to the country and act foolishly (...and in a soupbox moment:
What leader hasn't?)? Of course. But does this put him on the level of
Hitler? Certainly not. As I believe you mentioned at one point, would one
rather be a Jew under Hitler's reign or one of the Americans 'insulted' by
Clinton's behavior. Some realism is in order here.

My personal feeling is this: All of these people are human and will be
falliable. The key question when judging anyone's actions is intention.
While Lincoln may have also had the economic incentive on his side and Vlad
had some countrymens' interests in mind, there is no way you could
rationailize the two as being morally equal.

From: "tianmere"

Greetings,
As I emailed earlier, I was thrilled with your "ESP" page. It was =
terrific, so was the computer hard drive reading page [that one was a =
terrifically sneaky display of HTML]. However, the more I read your =
site, the more I realize just how English your sense of humor is. =
You're almost as funny as PDQ Bach.

But, as for the top ten evil people...... Yes, Clinton does not fully =
satisfy the definition of good. [So, that makes him either neutral or =
evil. And, I don't think he's neutral.] He's not trustworthy, that's =
for sure. And, only time will be able to tell if he really harmed the =
world or not. I've heard that it takes about two years after a =
president leaves office for everything to start taking effect, thus =
throwing the public scorn on the next of office, when the proverbial =
fecal matter has hit the rotary cooling device.

But, I'd like to nominate George Lucas for one of the modern really good =
people. While he may not qualify for saint-hood, he definitely has =
inspired hope and the desire to achieve in numerous young people. =20

Other great and wonderful people exist, but due to our capitalist =
society, they aren't saleable. Bad, evil, illfortuned, etc can be =
sensationalized, dramatized, and strewn out for weeks. Hatred is a =
strong emotion that I'm sure has some instintucal survival traits =
attached to it. Good, on the other hand, is comforting. Comfort is =
something that is only noticed when it's missing. Heros are the stuff =
of myths. In this day and age of glorified violence, the hero's actions =
go unsung. And since they go unnoticed, there isn't any chance of them =
becoming mythical. =20

Thanks for letting me ramble. As I get through more of your website, I =
will probably feel compelled to write you more.

Have a great day!
Donni

From: "Louise"

Hi Cliff,

I've been thinking about your good and evil lists and I agree it's harder to
think of people who are good. I think your visitors who speculate about evil
being more obvious and easier to define than good are right on the money.

So I tried to decide what was "good" if "bad" is killing folks and so forth,
but I don't think killing people is always bad, for example perhaps in some
contexts killing an individual might be considered good. And I think it's
not so much the action of killing that is bad, but perhaps the effect on the
population, ditto with other non-good acts. Perhaps the most evil acts are
those which make us feel despairing, or that devalue life, the things that
deprive our lives of beauty and transcendence.

And that's why the only actual candidate for "good" I could come up with
(amongst a whole bunch of 'the guy who started the tulip craze';
'whatshisname who brought chocolate to Europe's; 'that great composer
guy.....Handel? Bach?' and so on) is .... I was going to say St Benedict,
the gardening monk, who really started a lot of the way we think about
gardens today, but as I was writing that it seemed to me that really gardens
are an Arabic thing - but I do stand by the garden as a major force of good.

Louise

From: Mark Pokras

lenin could be another evil person

From: Pimphomieothe1st

i think you should but saddam hussain on your list

From: "Roger Herbert"

Am wholly surprised that Margaret Thatcher does not figure more highly. I
suppose this is a US site, but she has not only caused misery in the UK but
worldwide. She has caused wars, been Pinochet's advocate and her first job
after being PM was promoting Marlborough cigarettes to Third World children.
It seems to me it is easier to pin down acts of evil largely because good is
EVERYWHERE and we take much of it for granted.
However, I debate the whole idea of evil. I believe there is only love and
fear. Bigotry comes from fear, evil acts and systems come from fear. There
are good people and there are ***ked up people. Remember everyone was an
innocent child at one point in their lives. No-one can say that a baby is
evil!
Ruth

From: Brian Leahy

On your 'Good and Evil' page, Adolf Hitler is often
spelled "Adolph". I'm no historian, but I've always
seen it spelled with an 'f' rather than a 'ph'.
-BL

From: Sockmonkey2001
Marquis de Sade...now there was a twisted individual. Your list is very well
done. As a fan also of your books, your work constantly continues to
influence me help me grow in so many ways. Thank you for all your words.

Eric M.
Stobie

From: "Aaron Saunders"

I would happen to, (like many others,) disagree with your list. For
starters, I don't believe in the existence of good and evil. Two reasons:
1.) The Spooks-in-the-Sky-Swindle has yet to be confirmed, and apparently,
that's what decides what is and what isn't good or evil. 2.) There are no
concrete definitions or standards as to what good and evil are. However,
whereas Right and Wrong
are concerned, then I will agree that they exist, but only in the eye of the
beholder.

However, I too, am going to have to object to this list. Here are my
objections:

1. Martin Luther King - a closet Commie and pervert! Sound like a guy who
deserves to be at the top of the "Good-guy list to you?"

2. Abe Lincoln - who obviously wasn't interested in the welfare of negroes,
whatsoever, but rather in some idiotic agenda that would rivel those of
today. He doesn't does deserve to be at the Top of the "Good-Guy" list for
anything.

3. Jesus Christ - a Jewish comic book character, whose existence is not
substantiated by history or by any archeological finds whatsoever. Does
Thor, Odin and Loki deserve to be at the Top of the Good-guy List too?

4. Adolf Hitler - like it or not this Man has been one of the best damn
friends to Western Civilization, during the 20th century. If people will
actually READ - YES, READ - up on the actual history behind the 3rd Reich
rather than swallow that atrocious garbage spewed by the media, then they
may learn to appreciate the 3rd Reich for what it actually was rather than
what some sicko from Hollywood's imagination makes it out to be.

5. Vlad Tepes - one of the most brilliant and legendary leaders of Eastern
Europe of all time! This Man, too, crushed the threat of advancing Turks and
was, genuinely, as one of your respondents' claimed A Peoples' Leader. His
villiany is way too overrrated.

6. The Pope of all People... Quiet frankly, I don't care what Pope it is,
these Spook-Diddlers do not deserve the grace of a brown-nosing media.

7. WHERE THE HELL'S CLINTON ON THE BAD GUY LIST?

8. Moses - this guy was some psychotic, babbling moron who would rivel some
nutcases, such as Jones, Manson or Koresh.

Conclusion: If these are your idols and foes, you must be either one
gullible chump or some nutcase. Which, I don't know you tell me.

From: "Manon Masteric"
Dear Cliff
I propose you to add to your list of "evil" persons Radovan Karadzic, the
lidership of bosnianserbs during the war in Bosnia (1992-1995) who wanted to
exterminate the muslim population in Bosnia and Herzegovina. More
information on that you can find on

http://www.wcw.org/icty/suspects/Radovan_Karadzic.html

or

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/karadzic

Good luck in your future work

Manon from Bosnia

From: AnnieB007

NAPOLEON SHOULD DEFINITELY BE RANKED BETTER THAN LINCOLN OR KING. NAPOLEON
ESTABLISHED INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND FREE ENTERPRISE FOR ALL OF US. HE
DESTROYED THE OPPRESSIVE POWER STRUCTURES IN EUROPE THAT OPPOSED THESE
CONCEPTS, AND EVEN EXECUTED MANY WHO UPHELD OPPRESSION OF THE INDIVIDUAL.
THEN HE REALIZED THAT THE PEOPLE WERE TO IGNORANT TO REALIZE THEIR NEW FOUND
POWER, AND SEEING THE CORUPTION OF GOVERNMENT, HE OPPRESSED THE PEOPLE'S
RIGHTS--WHILE STILL TEACHING THEM ABOUT IT--UNTIL THE PEOPLE EXERCISED THEIR
RIGHTS EVEN AGAINST HIM. HE DIED DISGUSTED WITH THE IGNORANCE OF THE PEOPLE,
BUT GLAD THAT THEY FINALLY ROSE TO THE TASK OF THEIR OWN WORTH.

From: B. M.

Hi cliff,

I just stayed somewhat longer on your site and viewed the good/evil top
tens...
My personal opinion is that there is really no "big" or "small" evil or less
or more, only the impact of certain deeds on "the world" are bigger as
others differs...
And maybe if I ste pon an ant purposely to destroy it and to feed my hate or
anger the impact is much bigger than I ever can imagine...
;)
We only see what we believe we see (I'm not sure, but I feel that this might
be a quote from someone), anyway the impact of people like Hitler, Stalin
seems very big... but maybe it was something small that happened in their
youth that lead them to what their lives have become... maybe it was
something what happened thousends of years before they were ever born that
lead us into existence and made/make us do "bad" things...
(excuse my poor english by the way, i hope you understand what i'm trying to
say here)

Personally I have a strong feeling that their are very powerful people
(probably very rich, old banking families, nobles, former kings and queens
maybe) of wich most of them we never hear and who we will never see nor hear
of... people who can make or break a whole nation (lead it to war, destroy
it) Hitler and people like him are maybe mere puppets in a big game of
chess...
Ok, maybe this sounds paranoid but if you check on what happens to people
and how easy they can be manipulated I think there are some really bad
motherfuckers (excuse me) over in this category of powerful, rich mass media
controllers and manipulating puppetmasters...
it's like most religions wich were used most of the time as a means of
manipulating people, now it has become money... who doesn't believe in money
anymore (well, everybody here in Holland does, and I think it's the same in
the US)

So... I don't have any names for you, but what I'm trying to say is that it
is not always the rude puppet wich is the most evil, most of the time it is
his or her boss...
like with dogs, if you raise'em well the chances that they will be nice are
bigger than if I kick my dog veryday and don't feed him, yell at him, etc...
one day he bites a little child... who's the evil then??? me or the dog??
you tell me;)

From: JOEL BECKER

YOU SHOULD INCLUDE FARAH VEST MY EX-GIRLFRIEND, SHE WAS PURE EVIL!
THE DEVIL'S DAUGHTER!

From: "Bruce Burns"
Cliff,

I must disagree with your inclusion of Moses in your "Good" list. =
Besides the question of whether Moses, and incidently Jesus Christ too, =
ever existed, a thorough reading of the Pentateuch, the 5 books of the =
Old Testament that are attributed to Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, =
Numbers and Deuteronomy) clearly show that Moses was a murderer (Exodus =
2:12), ordered the murder of prisoners (Numbers 31:17), ordered the =
keeping of female prisoners who were virgins (Num 31:18), led mass =
killings of women and children (Deuteronomy 2:34), ordered killings =
(Deut 13:15) etc.....In other words you would not want Moses babysitting =
your children or get into a religious disagreement with him.=20
Sincerely,
Bruce

From: edward elias

Hello!

You included Ben Yoshua aka Jesus of Nazareth
and Moses on the top 10 "good people". I dont think
they deserve to be there because:

1. Jesus in the New Testament prove to be a
racist when he refused to heal the son of the Greek
woman.

2. If we are to believe the New Testament,
Jesus has promised to come back to enjoy the death of
countless millons of people who have not accepted his
word. Read Revelations

In regards to Moses:

1. If we are to believe the Old Testament,
then Moses is a Genocidal maniac camparable to Hilter
and others. He murders innocent children, just because
he does not agree with the politics or religion of
their parents. (see Exodus)

2. Murders a security officer in cold blood.
(read Exodus)

3. Murders people of his own group because
they choose another religion. (read Exodus and the
Murders of Aaron by Moses comand. Read the definition
of genocide, and this qualifies as so.

Therefore, I dont think that is scholarly to
include this caracters in your list.
I would appreciate an answer.

Sincerely

Rev Elias Bernard

From: "digits"
Hello Professor Pickover

A few things about the good and evil list.

Wouldn't it be better to run the Good/Evil list either totally
democratically with a voting page, or to make it completely your work by
doing all the research yourself. By taking bits and pieces from email
submissions, you will be heading the advice of some liars and biased folk
and ignoring the occasional verifiable submission. This hybrid between the
two just seems unworkable.

You also included no real criteria for determining evil. Most evil in mind
and intent? Most evil in utilitarian result?

There is also no real criteria for determining good. Lincoln did free the
Southern slaves, but probably not out of moral conviction if you've read all
his speeches esp. pre-Civil War. Mother Teresa, while a wonderful woman
didn't affect the world nearly as much, but was undoubtably more devoted to
the suffering masses.

And what in the world in Eichman doing up there? While he did his job
effectively he neither masterminded the plan, nor carried it out with glee.
Just sort of a plodding success. As Arendt said a shearly banal evil.
Without him the Holocaust would have probably been the same, there just
would have been someone else either more zealous, or just as determined as
Eichman. While Eichman may be more relevent and understandable, if
frightening, I fail to see how he is "more evil" in either a utilitarian
results-based, or kantian decision-based ethical system.

I just don't see what you are trying to accomplish with this list

ps. and if you need student researchers next summer, I am a 3rd year physics
major at Calvin College...

thanks,
D. B.-Clarke

From: "Daoist Raver"

This e-mail will be a bit long, so I apologize in advance.

As to your first question, my friend sent me the link.
As to your second:
well, there are some parts where the typography and design could be better,
and the spelling and grammar, but the content is pretty darn good the way it
is.
Also to add to your list of Evil Persons (funny how so many of them are
national leaders, eh?) - Enver Hoxha, ruler of Albania from the 40's to the
90's. I can't really go into too much detail here, but he was rather evil.
Slobodan Milosevic (ethnic cleansing) also comes readily to mind - he seems
far more evil than say, Saddam Hussein, who is not a particularly nice
fellow either.
On the list of Good, I would nominate Buckminster Fuller, who gave
tirelessly of himself to try and bring new ideas that would be in his own
words "omni-advantageous", and tried to prove, through the World Game, how
evil harms us all.

"My goal in conducting this little demonstration was to emphasize how
easily we can be fooled and how great our will is to believe in the
spiritual, the paranormal, and phenomena beyond science. I hope this
simple test reinforces the need for skeptical thinking when evaluating
claims of the paranormal."

- Right. There's enough weirdness that exists within the realm of the
verifiable without having to make things up. I am into Information Theory
right now, which is leading me towards some interesting interpretations of
the quantum non-locality situation, a merging of the many-worlds and
copenhagen interpretations.
I am also a daoist (as was Niels Bohr, one of my personal idols), and it
bothers me a bit that people misidentify that philosophy (well, as laid out
in the Dao De Jing at least...), assuming that it makes untestable
paranormal claims. It doesn't, and is not incompatible with the scientific
method at all. It is merely a set of observable patterns of nature and
human behavior. Perhaps not as precise as those discovered by years of
experimentation but a good guideline as to how the universe seems to behave
on a macro-level. I think that most of these critics never bothered to
actually study the text but just lump it together with 'eastern religion'.
I am very happy to see skepticism in others on the other hand, and I agree
with your statement. There may well be a god in the machine, but if there
is, we must have some restraint in what we can claim about it. The
exclusive or may not be broken.
Glad to get your response.

ad-m

"It is not the logic of the universe which is fuzzy, but the perception of
it."
________________________________
"Both knowledge and experience are real,
but reality has many forms,
which seem to cause complexity.

By using the means appropriate,(reason and observation)
we extend ourselves beyond
the barriers of such complexity,
and so experience the Tao. "
- Tao Te Ching, Chapter 1

From: "Liza Simonova"

Jesus should not be on the list since it never was proved beyond doubt that
he actually existed
perhaps it was a story to convert the Egypstians to christianity?
and what says the story had not been told and told and retold and changed in
such a way that his possible mistakes had been eliminated and good deeds
exaggerated?

also, if you really need someone for your evil list, try Marquis de Sade
he vafoured torture for his sexual pleasure as well, and wrote books
(well... those big roll thingies of a coupla meters long anyway) on it
finding something on him should not be hard, put his name into any search
engine and you should have enough hits

oh, and put Ford and who-ever else invented the car on the evil list too..
so many people died in agony because of that!
(if you excuse the bad of that because it's done so much good, consider the
environment damage too
and if you still excuse the bad parts, you must excuse Napoleon, Hitler,
Stalin, Vlad, and more folks as well.)

From: NDABritti

I think I'm on to you, though I might be totally wrong. Were some of the
people and their accompanying explanations, such as Mose for concieving of
the wonderful invention we call the weekend and Abraham Lincoln for freeing
"the" slaves (which should be the American slaves; besides, he really didn't
free them), included only to be provoke responses? If they were, it was a
brilliant success, as is indicated by the massive amount of responses you
recieved!

Dominic
-

From: "Phill"

Very interesting site you have. Im glad you put teh evil first and the
Good last. It makes a welcome relief.

I would like to nominate Dr Harold Shipman (Dr Death) for entry into
your Evil Gallery.=20
Recent (June 2001) estimates by the UK Police suggest a kill total of
upto 1,200!!

I think, that Ossama Bin Laden should be added to the "evil" list. Even =
if it isn't certain, that he had anything to do with the atacks on new =
york and washington, he has done enough in his own country, to stick him =
among people like Hitler, Stalin and the others. He supports the Taliban =
in Afghanistan with loads of money, weapons etc. Also he is supposed to =
have said, that he is going to destroy all religions other than the =
moslems. This man is definetly a person, you can call evil.

From: Litsigns

Osama Bin Laden. For obvious reasons.

From: Jennifer MacKnight

Osama bin Laden,
Saddam Hussein,
Jerry falwell,
Pat Robertson

From: "Lori Y. Downie"

I think I speak for millions of Americans--radical-Islamic militant
groups should be added to your "evil list".

From: BritBrat830

I think Charles Manson is worthy of the top 100 evil people list...
what a horrible man.

Thank you.
-

From: no.one.cares

I believe the Armenian slaughter was led more by Enver Pasha
(there were 3 in charge but he was the most notable), the
revolutionary leader of new Turkey that helped them survive the first
world war. They likely would have been destroyed were it not for him,
and in turn he rounded up all Armenians and killed them rather then
sort through who was docile and who was dangerous. War has no morals.

As to the definition of Evil/Good which you provided on another
page, it still uses morality within it, another debatable argument.
In order to simplify for argument, I modified the definition to evil
being anything which culls human progress to some attainable goal, and
good that which spurns it. It is fairly oblique in this sense, but
covers what I think is necessary. Some may include all life, or all
animal life, but I say unquestionably that humans stand out as the
caretakers of these morals, so for them to exist humans must come
first.

Now an issue with progress is its seemingly indeterminability at a
given time, so I resolve this by making it whatever helped cause
progress up to a given moment, so yes, the status of good/evil in
people will change as history writes itself as we've so seen
throughout the ages (one huge example is the contempt Christopher
Columbus was held under in the 80's where as he was a hero in ages
before).

In this light, Clinton was quite probably worse than Hitler, and
Bush worse than both. Hitler, despite all his heinous acts, motivated
the world to vast technological/biological gains. Atomic physics
would have been much slower in gains without him. He ended the
biggest worldwide recession, and actually forced the democratic world
to unite.

Bill Clinton on the other hand was the first president ever to
leave office with one last detrimental maneuvre (all other presidents,
except the dead, have left their term with an unpopular bill or move
that is beneficial in principle to the economy). He esentially blew
our economy with energy regulations, and avoided opening the Yucca
mountain or helping alleive the ban on nuclear power plants in the US.
Plus many various acts during his presidency which led to a general
biterness in the nation. These however, might turn around as the
nation sees need to fix problems, whence his blundering will become a
gateway to change. Then he would be considered good again.

Of course if there is no goal or Omega point to human endeavors,
this becomes potentially meaningless to, and perhaps the definitions
should be good: that which best ameliorates human pain, evil: that
which increases it.

Otherwise good and evil and endlessly disputable ideas and it
proves an excercize in futility to debate them.

Cory Przybyla

From: Renee Simon

BIN LADEN

From: "Rodger K. Johnston"

GOOD- Jesus Christ , died for the sins of every person and through him we
have life eternal- John 3:16

EVIL-SATAN- father of all lies . He has worked on every person in every
place and in all ages, to secure their destruction. All evil comes from
him.

(death, suffering, torture, hate, crime, ..........time grows short for
him

From: "Michael Montez"

First of all I was greatly intrigued by your good and evil list
finding it veryinteresting but a bit vague as to why some where on the
list and others were not. You continue to argue the Vlad Tepes place
and may or may not be correct according to our friends in Romania (this
I will study for myself) and left out people such as Ted Bundy, Jeffrey
Dahmer... and the rest of the 'serial killer' group whose actions could
seriously fall into a very evil catagory.

As for good how about FDR, and his new deal which created aid to
assist americans in need during the great reccession an dustbowl here in
the US.

How about leaders who manage to avoid war and find a peaceful
solution in the face of eminant threat such as Nelson Mandella, or those
who strive everyday to make a difference such in the lives of others in
a positive manner like Jimmy Carter with his Habitats for Humanity
campaign alive and well today.

To do great good is not always noted and is often overlooked
especially in today's society where the standard in the media is, "If it
bleeds, It leads". Could this not be considered eveil as well..... In
the way that it is preferable to fill telivision with sensational horror
and devistation to millions rather than try to enlighten and uplift.
Would that make Ted Coppel evil (no offense Ted)??

As to how you spoke to Deb and Marius, I found that a bit
ingratiating and do agree that to judge those of the past by today
standards is arrogant, though unintentionally I'm sure but to be a fair
Devil's Advocate I cannot argue with you either that yes Vlad's way of
punishment, 'hobbies' and dining ambiance were quite appaling hence yes =
he belongs on the list but as to where becomes the question.

Lastly please forgive me but this has been bugging me terribly since =
I read your exchange page, so If I may.....Ahem....... President George =
Bush was in office during the gulf war the older. In fact President =
Clinton had our military reduced and gave more to educational programs =
than the previous two presidents.=20

Yes he did make a very big mistake which he will probably will regret =
his entire life but does that make him evil. Yes the poor bastard lied, =
probably in hopes to save what little love was left in his marriage, and =
to save his daughter further humiliation. Hell yah, he down played it =
and tried to imply he did not feel it was sex.... Mrs. clinton had him =
dead to rights and he new it, he tried to save his proverbial butt =
anyway he could, personally I feel for the guy because his legacy as =
president will now and forever be a stain on a blue party dress.
No when it comes down to it Cliff evil and good are nothing more than =
ones perspective and due to the 'Norm' most of your list would be =
inarguable but thank our lucky stars for the diversity offered =
throughout our world or else i would not have found out that Vlad Tepes =
may or may not have been the monster I thought him to be and is even =
revered in his homeland for things our sensationalist country had =
forgotten to tell us about.

In any case thank you for hearing my ranting and thank you for such a =
very interesting perspective on your website

From: "Pedersen"

What an intriguing compilation. The evil people are much more interesting to
read about than the good people. perhaps it's an instinctive interest
acquired from violent chimp-like ancestors?

My nominee for evil person: God/Yahweh/Jehovah. Most people believe God
exists and is real in some sense of the word. The God of the Bible did many
evil things, not the least of which was creating evil itself, in the form of
fallen angel "Satan". God-given free will resulted not only in the Devil,
but in all these evil people on your list. God also destroyed all life on
Earth, with the exception of the Ark inhabitants, via a global flood, he
killed great numbers with pestilence, he toyed with his follower's emotions,
such demanding Abraham kill his son, etc etc.

April

From: Lawrence

Subject: countries bad or bad leaders?

I think Nanking and Nazi Germany brings up difficult question, are some
countries more evil than others. Is it just bad regimes or bad people
in power, or are the people more evil (genetically or culturally) Hard
to believe America or Great Britain could ever do what Nazi Germany did.
Optimists will say it's just product of bad leadership or bad regime,
but most people are good. However hard to believe this about Germany =
(with it's concentration camps or Japan with its Nanking etc. Maybe =
answer is humanitiy is basically bad - that may be easier for me to =
believe. If you beleive a country of people are more evil than another =
- does that make you a racist. What are your feelings?
If countries can be bad than it makes you feel better using A Bomb to =
accomplish your goal. Might doesn't make right, but if right has the =
might why not use it.
Herr Hill thought German's weren't bad or worse than Americans, just a =
bit misguided. That "Nazi Germany" behaviour could occur in USA for =
example if bad leaders in place and not stopped, or certain conditions =
arose.
(the we're all equal theory)
LP

From: artstatistict

hands down..... Osama Bin Ladin

From: "Beth M"

I think Mohammed should
be on your good list, especially these days, to remind people that
Islam was created as a peaceful religion. Malcolm X should also be on
it.

As for the person who said Jesus
should not be on the good list, I think her name was Liza, if you're
going to say that, you would also have to ask to take Buddha off among
other so called "unproven" persons. Although there is actually a lot
of proof he existed, even if he didn't exist, the ideas surrounding
his "believed" existence are enough to put his name on the list. The
same goes for Buddha and others like them.<

From: Nick Poole

I do not agree Ghandi should be on the top ten good people.
He encouraged the Indians to rebel against the British during WWII. =
This
was very harmful to the Allied war effort, not simply the British. It
seems therefore he preferred the tyranny of Japan and we all know what
they were like then, don't we? Massacres in Nanjing, hospitals in HK &
Singapore etc etc.
=A0
Nick Poole - Hong Kong

From: Pedro Luiz Gazoni

Dear Cliff,
Having first gone through other less controversial aspects of your site
probably helped me on checking this link with a little less prejudice (i
think, i still am not sure if a thought can be totally or even deprived of
any form of prejudice, my first intuition is that it is impossible, but
that's the subject of a completely diverse discussion).
I do not really want to go into the question if either Vlad, Clinton or even
Hitler for that matter are evil or not.
My point here is that in some contexts this kind of behavior can be
justified to some people. You probably has read The Prince by Machiavel. The
book is sort of a rulers manual and in many instances it advocates the use
of violence (including murder) to better serve your loyal subjects.
Thus, in the context of the book, just to give one example, its not only
justifiable for the emperor to kill, but it is mandatory for him to do so,
because if he does not his people will suffer greater evils and he will not
be performing his task to the best of his ability.
Maybe that's the message the romanians are trying to get across to you.
Of course, these things are hard to measure, was it necessary for Vlad to go
to such level of atrocities to defend and protect his country? Who knows? He
did it because he felt like it was necessary or because he liked it? Who
knows?
You may say that those are arguments from people that are only trying to see
things from one side (full of prejudice, etc).
But as you saw for yourself, even though you did not anticipate it, in the
eyes of a lot of people yours was a list full of prejudice too.
My point here is that for such matters it is hard if not impossible to
create an impartial scale. And no I do not regard majority consensus as
always being a fair form of judgement, some other requirements have to be
fulfilled to make that assumption true (Symetrical information etc).
I guess this is the sort fo subject that gave Descartes a lot of nights
without sleep - so much for objective reasoning.

I do not know if you are going to be able to make any sense of my
digressions here, but i felt compelled to write.

Regards,
Pedro

From: "Brent Farch"

I found your # 10 choice for good to be a personal choice, the man may
have done a good thing for women. Just becuase he was an intellegent man
who discovered the makeings of a pill dose not mean that he was a good
man. I do agree with what you stated about ending endless childabuse
cases and such regardless, what if he did it all for money or personal
gain who really knows. (just a thought)

I am sure people have e-mailed you about uncle binny but what about Men
like Noreaga, Paul Bernardo(& wife), Sadam Hussien (mostly for useing
mustard gas on his own people), The leader of the Jonestown cult mass =
suicide of over 2,000 people or even that nut heavensgate boy Richard =
Applegate.

Enough dising your site, dispite my last two paragraphs I think your
site is dope, Buddah is one of my personal idols, and you even gave me a
education whith some of your picks, you really did your looking around =
before making your choices that's obvious, Hey as I am writing this I =
can't remember any women on the evil side and on the good side only =
Mother Theresa but what ever I don't care about that just another.

Subject: Religion is the source of all evil!

There was an article in the Iranian site about how if it wasn't from
religion, likes of Ben Ladin wouldn't exist. She wrote that no "Atheiest"
would ever crash a plane to a building, etc, etc. Here is a nice response
to it!

=========================================================

Atheists killed more

I have to disagree with the premise behind the commentary by Setarah Sabety
and state that atheists are to blame for more deaths and wars in the last
century than the religious ["Anthrax of the masses"]. I can't recall Pol
Pot and the Khmer Rouge being to big on God during their little fiasco in
Cambodia. Or maybe Stalin and his politburo when they creatively killed of
millions of Ukrainians.

Hitler and friends dabbled in the occult but were atheists for the most
part. Mao and his revolutionary compadres were responsible for the biggest
massacre and forced starvation in recorded history. The North Vietnamese
didn't hold prayer breakfasts and the gruesome Albanian socialist party
didn't go to confession or celebrate ramadan.

But that was just the last century, lets look back a little further. Julius
Caesar said he seriously doubted the existence of the gods, maybe that
helped him plan the enforced genocide of 2 million Gaul's. Kublai Kahn
though semi-enlightened didn't really favor any particular religion, and
ordered the wiping out of whole cities. And how about the bloody french
revolution and it's reign of terror? Choc full of atheists, no religious
allowed. Even bloody old Napoleon wasn't religious and often fought the
clergy.

In fact when you take a step back and look at the whole picture of human
history you find more people were murdered by atheists than all other
belief systems combined.

Sincerely,

Edwin Duthie

From: "nicholaus smith"

How could you rate all of those people on your top ten evil list? Obvious
ly your not to interested in all of those disgusting people who enjoy the
torture of young children. You only have one person in which you actuall
y typed about. Gilles De Rais the guy who preferred to take young boys an
d sodomize them before and after decapitation. That is so evil and disgus=
ting. Even the thought of that just brings tears to my eyes. Now tell me =
how all the people who are on your list even amount to the evilness of th=
at. There are so many people in this world who are so much more evil then=
some that not even you or I can catagorize them. Evil to me is not so s=
imilar to your thoughts of evilness. Children in this life time are our f=
uture and our future is taken away from us by torture for the pleasure of=
another soul who does not even deserve to live. Try to recognize all the=
evil that people hold in their pleasure. This goes on day by day and wil=
l never be stopped. Now that is evil. Now don't get me wrong the people t=
hat you have listed are in deed evil but not evil enough to me. To me eve=
ry one has evil in them even if there evil is not recognized it is hidden=
like a secret another soul in the closet waiting to be discovered by th=
e world today. That is evil.
=20
Cryst=
al S. =20
-

From: "Phil Campagna"

Valerie
(practicing witch)
principal of a catholic school.
Has been a known liar cheat and other unmentionables

From: "Mina"

To webhost,

I do not agree with Genghis Khan being on the list of most evil men. Yes he
did awful things, but so have everyone else in every other war.I am from
England and my name is Mina.I am a historian and I would like to share my
infomation on Genghis Khan with you.

Genghis Khan was a ruler of his people. I mean in a way of fairness and and
justness. He treated his army with great kindness and never moved from one
place until every man in his army down to the most unimportant soldier was
fed. He only wanted to bring good to his people and live in peace away from
intruders. He was often seen as an assasin, which cannot be deinied lightly,
but a story I read up once is quite interresting.

An English soldier was at war with the Mongols and he was knocked out in
battle. His army had left him for dead, and he was left in the middle of
unknown terratory, a desert. I travelled for miles for water, but found
none.He passed out were he stood from dehydration. He awoke in a camp,
surounded by Mongol warriors. He knew he was dead from were he sat. Then the
man himself, Genghis Khan walked in the tent. The soldier coward under his
gazed and awaited his death. Genghis Khan ordered something to his guards,
and they brought the soldier food and drink. Genghis Khan watched the
soldier eat and drink quietly. Then suddenly, Genghis Khan began to speak to
him in English. The soldier quickly found out Genghis was a learned man and
was very, VERY clever. After a week or so, Genghis Khan was allowing the
soldier to walk around his camp unautharised. The soldier was looked after
until he was well again. He became great friend s with the mongols, Until..

Genghis Khan was planning another attack against the English. The soldier
felt out of place. He couldnt betray Genghises kindness, but couldnt betray
his own country. Genghis Khan took the soldier out to the hills one night
and told him the story of the Lion and the mouse. Enemys can become friends,
but will always have their diffrences. Genghis Khan shook the soldiers hand
and said, see you in hell.

The soldier resigned from the army and travelled back to England in honur of
Genghis.

That stroy was based on fact, it actually happened.

I hope this helps, Yours, Mina

From: "Geoff McIntosh"

Hey,

You should move Lincoln to the "evil" side since he helped destroy the U.S.
Republic and helped destroy our country. We didn't fight the Civil War over
slavery...that's basic history. Also, FDR should be added since his
dictatorial style contributed to the overblown evil government we have today
and he was an admirer of that murderer Stalin. How about Woodrow Wilson
whose interventionist political style is still in use today and is pretty
much directly repsonsible for the widespread hatred of America found all
around the globe? He also gave us the Federal Reserve and another Income
Tax (Lincoln gave us the first income tax AND the first use of
unconstitutional fiat money...more reasons to add that jerk to the evil
list).

Now you can add Bush and Ashcroft too...as well as most of the Congressmen
and Senators currently in Washington. With the passage of the PATRIOT act
we've now decended further into tyranny.

And finally, add to the "evil" list all of the proponents of gun control.
By making laws that keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens
they've made the streets more dangerous for all of us and have helped to
turn this country into a nation of victims rather than responsible citizens
who can take care of themselves.

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of
another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
--Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. ME 15:24

From: JFNRNA

Jack the ripper

From: "Catherine Napoli-Cohen" <>

Just found your site looking up Antebe.

I'topure you've received this email a million times, but we should
put Osama bin Ladan at the top of the evil list. What most disturbs
me about him (not what I find most repulsive, which is obvious, but
most disturbing) is the look in his eyes. It in not a look of fierce
evil or hate. In fact it is kind and almost loving and comforting.
Seriously, if you just saw the eyes, you would not realize they were
the eyes of The Devil himself. It is that, the ability to look so
innocent (and gain so many followers by looking that way) that makes
him more evil. Because nothing in him even remotely acknowledges the
wrong. In evil people you see evil in their eyes because a part of
them still knows they are evil. In bin Ladan, he is the devil truly
because no part of him believes in evil. It is all good (the
destruction) in his mind.

From: fahlawi81

I dont know if you will read this message and if you're the sensative type
then stop reading after the next full stop.

You have got to be the worlds biggest hypocrite or the worlds biggest idiot.
You put a scale for evil and good by asking yourself who you would rather or
rather not be in a room with? In the list of evil you put Adolf Hitler but
not Winston Churchil who probably infinitely times worse than Hitler. Need I
remind you how after the germans accidentaly bombed an english civillian
target Hitler apologized but all Churchill did was start a wave of bombing
civillian targets which continues today in modern warfare not to mention how
Churchill hoped
that german U-boats would target american ships killing civillians onboard
to force the states into the war early.

As for all the people who were responsible for the irradication of Jews. You
must be a Jew because I dont see any Jews up on your list for perfectly
engineering two world wars, I asure you there arent a lacking of any names.
What about Herzl, But Hell how about Ariel Sharon He is still alive.

What about every american president since the states got its independance
from persecution only to persecute rather obliterate the indians who were
responsible for helping the first pilrims survive. And nowadays the states
condems Iraq and north Korea for developing weapons of mass destruction
while turning a blind eye toward Egypt and Israel and the CIA.

The above are just examples of the inconsistencies of your list.

There is no reletive position to good and evil if nor is there a maagnitude
of good or evil. If its good its good and if its evil its evil. Hiroshima
and Nagasaki were civilian cities the states killed civillians therefore
that was an evil act get with the logic behind it or stay behind a physics
book.

From: RFoor76

Texas serial killer Dean Corll most certainly belongs somewhere on
the top 100 "Evil" list. This sick monster liked to lure young boys
to his home with promises of candy and drugs. When they passed out
from sniffing glue and paint fumes, he would strap them to his
"torture board" and commit the most unspeakable atrocities upon them.
He would insert long thin rods of glass into their urethras and then
snap the rod in two, leaving the end of the tube in the childs penis
to torture him unceasingly until he was finally allowed to die.
Sometimes he would simply chew on their genitalia or bite off their
testicles. Other times he would sodomize them with huge 17-inch
dildos and even baseball bats. He would finally end their suffering -
sometimes DAYS later - by strangling them, shooting them in the head
or beating and kicking them to death. He killed 27 boys in only 3
years. An excellent book on this case is "The Man with the Candy:
The Story of the Houston Mass Murders" by Jack Olsen http://www.crimelib
rary.com/serial11/corll/
I find it hard to believe that some here (such as Carol C. and
Amanda W) think Mao Tse-tung doesn't belong on the evil list. He
easily ranks up there with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot as one of the
bloodiest despots of the 20th century. Let's examine WHY Mao belongs
on this list, and at the very top:

Mao's cultural genocide in Tibet - "Tibetans were not only shot,
but also were beaten to death, crucified, burned alive, drowned,
mutilated, starved, strangled, hanged, boiled alive, buried alive,
drawn & quartered and beheaded." - The Black Book of Communism p.544
According to the Tibetan Government-in-exile, around 1.2 million
Tibetans have died as a direct result of the Chinese brutal
occupation...

Mao's "Laogai" forced labor camps - "tens of millions of
"counter-revolutionaries" passed long periods of of their lives inside
the prison system, with perhaps 20 million dying there." - The Black
Book of Communism p. 464

Various quotes from Mao: "What's so unusual about Emperor Shih
Huang of the Chin Dynasty? He had buried alive 460 scholars only, but
we have buried alive 46,000 scholars. In the course of our repression
of counter-revolutionary elements, haven't we put to death a number of
counter-revolutionary scholars? I had an argument with the democratic
personages. They say we are behaving worse than Emperor Shih Huang of
the Chin Dynasty. That's definitely not correct. We are 100 times
ahead of Emperor Shih of the Chin Dynasty in repression of counter-
revolutionary scholars." - China's Bloody Century p. 8-9

One Chinese general who protested that there were too many Chinese
soldiers in Tibet was sent back to China in disgrace. Then there was
another general who told Chairman Mao that so many Tibetans had been
arrested there was not enough prison accommodation for them. Mao
replied: "Don't worry. Even if you have to imprison the whole
population, we'll find enough prisons." - Tears of Blood: A Cry for
Tibet p. 85
In official 1948 study materials concerning "agrarian reform", for
example, Mao Tse-tung, the undisputed ruler of the party and thus of
the country in these years, instructed cadres that "one-tenth of the
peasants [about 50,000,000] would have to be destroyed." - China's
Bloody Century p. 223

From: "Justin Gibson"

I was very impressed by you're back ground and history on this page! I've
just got a few comments and suggestions if you'd give me a minute, first
, =20
for evil people would you consider Jack the ripper? I mean his body count
was not that high, certainly not in the millions, not even in the hundre
ds, but the utter atrocity in which he carried out his killings still pal
es the works of mass murderers today! Should evil just reflect pure numbe
r of horrors or the evil person's actual intent?
And where's Cotton Mather, The sadistic leader of the Salem witch trails
? He was a very evil one, if you ask me. Would Cortez count? After all, h
e is respocible (pretty much directly) for the extermination of a whole r
ace (the Aztecs)
Furthermore I also have a problem with putting Lincoln on the list, you k
new he was a huge racist, hated the blacks and only freed them because he
said "I have no desire to live with them or by them, and given to their
own designs without the guidance of the white man, they will only result
in poverty and criminality" (or something close to that) and because of p
olitical pressure, and of course the second half of the Emancipation Proc
lamation was to send all blacks back to Africa, but this was never carrie
d out, because Lincoln kind of got killed.
And further Martin Luther king was a big supporter of the communists and
got a big chunk of his campaign money from the communist party, he talked
a good talk, but I don't believe that being in bed with Americas greates
t enemy (at the time) would constitute as a good deed. (look it up) Than
k you for you're time. And again, you have an excellent sight!

From: Trevor Oxborrow

Cliff,

I have enjoyed reading some of your pages. However, the Gang of Four did
not include Mao Tse Tung.
It included his widow Jiang Qing and three young Shanghai politicians:
Zhang Chunqiao, Wang Hongwen, and Yao Wenyuan.

From: "jason k"

Hi Mr. Pickover,

i'm sorry to say I have not read any of you books as of yet though i
surely will. However, I have looked at your website and it is, without
doubt, the most interesting page I have come across.
There is one thing in particular that I think you may want to highlight
now. On your Top Ten list of Evil guys you have some correspondance
from folks who believe that Bill Clinton was/is more evil than Vlad the =
Impaler, Hitler, etc. At first, I thought this was insignificant in =
light of the small numbers these folks represent, their seeming =
emotionalism, weak command of facts. Now, however, in the wake of Sept. =
11, I think the mentality and attitudes of these people should be called =
attention to independently of the Evil list.
There is without a doubt a psychology of anti-Americanism that warrants =
investigation and your correspondance on the evil list may offer some =
rare insights.
Maybe you could get in touch with these people again and ask them their =
opinion on the WTC attack? There are other variations of lists and =
forums that might be interesting in this regard.
Thanks for your time,
jk

From: VladiFab

Thank you for your work.

Of course everything is in the eye of the beholder. But even when 2 peoples
or 2 countries disagree, one think one was good and the other the opposite,
an objective and rational eye should judge. Recognized and ever free-thinking
and re-thinking morality should put red lines and not patriotism. So when
somebody is killing, systematically, deliberately, painfully on purpose and
with terrorizing intention and acts, it is bad. Good purpose can be bad as
well. But the degree, like in a crime will be different. Mistakes are done in
humanitarian ways, only when discussed will we be abble to try not to do them
again. (unfortunately new mistakes will arise, we look only at a problem too
close, we should look further, to see all the consequences, the other
dimensions of it).

I didn't understand why you explain for everyone of your evil the causes you
judge him as bad and not with Hitler. This is quite desinformation. Don't you
have description of Hitler and co. killings and tools. Don't you have numbers
? communists, handicapped, homosexuals, jews, tsygane, intellectuals,
political opponants and so on.. Gaz chambers, torture, medical
experimentation, mass grave, deliberate conditions of detention, crematory
oven, and so on... With the help of german and french companies : Farber,
SNCF etc... Sometimes a man can do horribles things, but when there is a
theory behind him, it is much more dangerous, we see it even today, vlad
died, but nazism, fascism are still among us, continuying to desinform
ignorant, spreading bullshit of superior or supremacist race and inferior
races, brain-washing new generation who can, I hope not, rescusite the horror
of legally murdering people because of their religion, race, beliefs...

Somebody wrote "Is saving people "good"? If you feed a starving person, are
you good? If that person lives to have children and the same basic problems
of lack of resources still exists, haven't you made things worse, merely
deferred a current problem and made it worse in the long term? Is that good
or evil? Is the leadership of China good or evil - clearly their Draconian
state enables a rapid reduction in their birth rate. Isn't that evil? Yet, if
they didn't control their birth rate, millions would die - isn't that evil?
". And I am agree with him, always look in a bigger dimensioni. But the way
to do good is important. Even if China really want to control the birth rate,
the way it does is wrong, one children per familly will be one boy. And in 20
years. Millions of boys without bride. A war to kidnap girls in the future ?

From: VladiFab

"human nature remains the captive of instincts, as well as of unconscious
assumptions and patterns of behaviour that have been culturally determined"

Some thoughts a philosopher friend of mine came on :
If we we re sure the Earth is flat, or the center of the universe and so on,
can't it be that we have still sure beliefs that seems logical but completely
false ?

WHY ARE WE SURE WE HAVE THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE ?

If there is no freedom of choice, how somebody is bad or good. We can't
judge, we can't punish anymore. If no freedom of choice, so nobody can
control himself, or knows what is bad or good.

Why somebody is not driven to become a criminal ? How do we know he made the
choice? If we don't know, what means our system of punishments ? Thousands of
year of this system, and the situation is worse. Protect the society, yes of
course,but why making a man guilty, he is the fruit of his environment , of
his trauma, of the society. If we thinkwe have to make a better world. We
should begin at the earlier age. But look in our schools, from the beginning
there is a discrimination between thestudent who understand quickly and the
others. What all the scores means ? Our reactions to somebody who is fat are
innate ? Or we just copy the teacher'sreation, our parents and so on... The
same with clothes ...

Our way of thinking has to be changed.

So if there is no freedom of choice, there is no bad or good. And we are all
products of the society. Society, civilization, education.... are the bad

If there is freedom of choice, I still think that most of the criminals are
products of the society. Society, civilization, education.... are the bad and
the few very bad human, than despite good family, education, genes and so on,
did choose the bad over the good.

I don't believe in satanic bad human. I believe that some people are mislead.
They are brain-washed to hate, wrongly educated to racism and prejudices,
were raised indespair and lack of good, had traumatic experience, made bad
assumptions orconclusions, made generalization and went to extremism. This is
so easy to hatethe one who hate. To kill the one who kill. To punish the one
who punish society for his reasons.

Racists or other bad behavioured men were not born like that. They became
like that. If somebody don't try to reach them (again and again) - , to
contradict, to bring prooves, to show other reality, to love them because it
is what is missed, - aworld is lost. And perhaps the children and the persons
this person will educate, brain-wash and so on. If I am wrong, I hope
somebody will try to help me. Our system does just want you want me or us to
do. And look where we get ! More crimes,more hate, more poverty, more
polution. I prefer to try to change bad things in my world. In a good manner.
Not making what I think the bad person is making wrong. Not to be violent
against violence. Asking questions. Trying to understand the answers or to
proove they are wrong. If nobody does it, it can only get worse. I do it to
help myself too. This world is the world I will give to the next generation.

Moses never enter Israel, he died in Jordan, so he couldn't be in Jericho and
kill like somebody wrote you. And there is more about him and about others.

A lot of people are just lying but their messages appear. It is a pity. It is
a long work, but if it is your site, you should make some research before
printing the assumptions.

Like I told before, everyone can with bad influences do non-moral things.
Drugs dealers,pedophils, supremacists of everywhere, the one in the US who
provoke wars inother countries, serial killers and so on... I don't want to
make a hierarchy between them. It is not the point.

Ben Ladin is not worse or better. He saw corruption in his country but
instead ofself-critic, and fighting the corrupted leaders in his country or
in the muslim "nation" ; (as muslims believers don't believe in the division
into countries done by Europe in theIslam), Ben Ladin is someone who prefer
to fight the one who are different fromhim that the one who are like him. A
true politician and strategist. Because itis easier : to gain help and
suporters, to call for holly war, to point thecause of all of the Islam's
problem into the jew or the christian, into Israelor into US (everyone has
his own scapegoat...), to call for unity against therest of the world,
infidels...

I believethe thing I heard that he built orphelinage, hospitals and so on...
I believehe thinks he is really fighting corruption, and fighting against US
foreignpolicy that intrude internal matters of other countries, and he wants
to stopthe israeli occupation.

But likemany of us, he sees only one side and he believes whatever he saw on
his media.And like many men he wants power, and to be the new leader of the
muslim world,with all 1 milliard followers (muslim countries are very poor
and perhaps allof them are govern by dictators, more or less corrupted by
Europe and US...)

He is justanother product of his culture and time, like I am of mine. He
doesn't make himbetter or worse, it is the way of thinking who is bad or
good. I think it is abig difference. Because it can be change or atenuated.
Education is the key,perhaps not for him but for next generations.

He doeswhat other did before him. Found a target and send human to death,
asking themto take as much as opponants with them.

So he isusing the instinct and logic of the jungle "I will kill them before
theykill me." or better "kill them before they kill us".

This orthis other leader of our "civilized world" is not so different. Tokill
civilians in Irak or else where. Because it is easier or politically
correct(LOL) to kill civilians than to kill their leader. Greed, money,
power, thethought that to be on the top is better than on the bottom (be the
rich, and dowhat you have to do, and don't be the poor) all the same. But
they attack farcountries and steal them, and we don't know all. Of course.
Mediatisation can becorrupted too, propaganda is not only during times of
war. journalists are ashuman as all of us. What we believe, they believe too.
Like the doctor whoprefer the money of the big medicinal companies,
journalist like allprofessions can be very subjective about morality, ethic,
money. They are inthe jungle too.

What yousee from there, is not what you see from here, I mean everything is
in the eyeof the beholder. Almost : Tell me who you are and I will tell you
what youthink. It is not always harsh propaganda, the soft one is so easy to
accept.

THE PROBLEMFOR ME IS that Ben Laden should not use violence against violence
and of coursehe shouldn't see the workers in the world trade center as the
ennemis. They areonly the sheeps, sorry, the civilians. Soldiers are sheeps
too, but at least weagree in a certain way when soldiers are attacked. We
don't agree whencivilians are attacked. In Israel, I am not agree when 12
years old girls aremurdered in a discotheque. THERE IS NO EXCUSE, CIVILIANS
SHOULDN'T BE TARGETED.PERIOD. By US, Ben Laden, Palestinians or israelis.

I amagainst violence and war and retaliation, terrorism, occupation .... To
beagainst violence against violence is not to think the world is all right
and itshould stay like it is. There are enormous change to be done but
revolution isnot the good answer I think. I prefer it takes some more years
but to do thework without violence. Revolution with its violence don't make
always positiveor lasting change. One elite will remplace another. We the
sheep, will stay thesheep. Usually, we will send our sons to war, not the one
in power.

So even ifI am not agree with some policies done by the for-now emperor of
the world, theUS, I am against the killing of civilians. The same in Israel
and everywhere.Liberation will came through morality and love. Not
revolutions, wars,uprisings and so on... It looks like it liberes the people,
but it just put new dictator instead of the old one.

Because our rules if still of the jungle, will make only jungle.

We can't get rid the world of anything, not terrorism, not hunger,poverty,
wars... We tried for centuries and failed, why will we succeed now ? Have we
got a better theory, a better education-system, a better morality... ?

What is terrorism, to kill a doctor who do abortion, or to kill fetuses?
Everything is in the eye of the beholder, in the mind of the
believer.Free-fighter or terrorist...

Until we change our way of thinking, racism, crimes, violence and so onwill
remain. The Americans think they know the truth as the Talibans and as
Staline,Hitler, Napoleon etc... Everyone of us believe God is on his side, or
there is no God and themoral, the truth is on his side. We still use violence
against violence. We are still discriminating, teaching it at home, at
school... In America or in Pakistan...

All justice system and of course the politic's is corrupted in one wayor
another. Money governs everything. A few time in our history, men arose and
stand against the whole world,and contradict the whole world beliefs. One
time, it was against the polytheism, another, against the Earth being the
center of the world, and soon... Everytime it was only a part of the truth,
because the bigger truth is to be always open-minded, not to believe
everything we were told, informed, forced to believe..., not to believe
everything we think is logical, right, true...,not to believe the criminals
are guilty because they did it, how do we know we have the free-will or
choice and doing ? When was it proven ?

Why a American-Taliban is brain-washed and non-American Taliban or a
Tchetchen or a Saoudi guilty of his thoughts and doings ? Justice is to
condamn the guilty or to stop the crimes, to dovengeance or to protect the
innocents (what is innocence) ?

Ben-Laden, Bush, Chirac, Chretien,... Americans, British,
israelis,palestinians and so on, are just the same. Doing what they think has
to bedone, God's will, people's will, majority's will, moral's will,
security'swill... Different situation, same bad tools, same violence, more
here, lesshere, to choose a scapegoat, to accuse somebody else of our misery,
the meansare different but the goal is the same : to control the power, or to
keep it,to arrive at the top, or to stay there, to be the rich for not
becoming thepoor (equal to make the other poor, so it means I am rich), the
same with strength, the same with rightness ...

Fabienne.
vladifab

From: Skimandharley

I think you can honestly say that Osama Bin Laden should be added to
the list. Due to the terrorist attacks on The World Trade Center Towers, and
also the bombing that took place there in 1998. He also took part in the
suicide bombing of the Navy ship, that took the lives of 17 sailors. Oh, what
about the Embassy bombing too? I am sure I could go on, but you get the
picture.

I was looking for some information related to zero point energy. There was
probably somewhere a link to your page. Then I stayed there for almost
three hours. It's an interesting site, with good graphics and plenty of
links. The "Scales of Good and Evil" article is interesting, especially
because I'm from Romania and I spent 12 years in Tirgoviste. Vlad Tepes
has there two statues. One in the main park of the town, and the second in
downtown. Enforcing the law or deterring enemies by very cruel punishments
was very common in that time. I don't think Vlad is evil because of
that. On the other hand, I consider evil and even sick any person that
takes pleasure from that kind of activities. I don't think is the
perception of evil that makes most romanians appreciate Vlad Tepes, but
his political achievements. I'm nuclear physicist, not historian, so take
my opinion as a personal one. He is now viewed as one who brought hope to
romanians in a time when the occupation of Otoman Empire was at its
peak. Less than 10% of romanians know that Vlad fought also with Stephan
the Great (Stefan cel Mare), prince of Moldavia, his own cousin. It's like
an approximation. You neglect some things favouring the others. One cannot
judge Mr. Clinton as politician by what he did with Ms. Lewinsky. As human
he is imoral, as as human Vlad Tepes is a very sick psycho.

By the way, Ceausescu was judged and executed in Tirgoviste. Some say that
he didn't receive a fair trial (I agree), but he received the kind of
trial he deserved (I agree too). :-)

From: ZHall72703

I nominate Al Gore. If he succeeded in stealing the election through the
counting and miscounting of votes, then I feel that our Nation will be in
peril. He does not know what truth is, has no integrity and will do
absolutely anything to become President. This makes him very dangerous and
evil.

From: "Liza Simonova"

I believe mother Theresa sould be among the evil folks.

After all, in a poor, overpopulated country with so many hungry and poor
people, she didn't consider an abortion clinique would have maybe done more
good than helping the dying?

As for Vlad the impaler, I'm with the people from Romania on this one.
Not evil, but strong!!

From: "Steve Hodgkiss"

I think old Charlie should make your evil list. He created a cult based
upon, of all things, The Beatles White Album and out of context Biblical
passages (Son of Man; i.e., Man-son). He directed others to do his bidding
like a sorcerer.

On the GOOD side:

Moses could use more credit for being a man with a great childhood as a
prince of Egypt, only to be outcast for supporting the captured Israelite
slaves, to witness the essence of the Creator YHWH (the unpronounceable name
of GOD) on Mount Sinai, and then to return to Egypt to free his people. He
was an obedient servant of God and as a result, led a great nation from
slavery -- thus being a role model for those mortal men who followed his
example centuries later to accomplish the same thing and invoked the same
words "Let my people go".

I also think you should elaborate more on Jesus Christ, the Son of the
living God, who demonstrated eternal life to his apostles, thus giving
eternal hope to all mankind who accept Him.

Mother Teresa, beloved humanitarian known throughout the world for her
charity towards the poor and her firm and passionate pro-life stance.

Food for thought:

Take the word EVIL and add the letter "D" to the beginning of it. What do
you have? "DEVIL"
Take the word GOOD and remove an "O" from the middle of it. What do you
have? "GOD"

Just a point I once pondered.

Thanks,

Steve Hodgkiss
A logical Christian

Click
here if you would like to see
thousands of more responses to the Scales of Good and Evil.
The debate continues...